Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
MasterPlanStudyReport
ii
2.
iii
2.4.
2.5.
2.6.
2.7.
2.8.
3.
2.3.4.
Product Outputs and Target Markets ............................................... 2-13
2.3.5.
Waste and Hazardous Products ....................................................... 2-15
2.3.6.
Utility Requirements ......................................................................... 2-15
DRI/HBI Plant ................................................................................................. 2-15
2.4.1.
Description of Process Technologies and Licensors ........................ 2-16
2.4.2.
Plant Capacity .................................................................................. 2-17
2.4.3.
Feedstock and Product Inputs.......................................................... 2-17
2.4.4.
Product Outputs and Target Markets ............................................... 2-18
2.4.5.
Waste and Hazardous Products ....................................................... 2-19
2.4.6.
Utility Requirements ......................................................................... 2-19
Cement Plant.................................................................................................. 2-20
2.5.1.
Description of Process Technologies and Licensors ........................ 2-20
2.5.2.
Plant Capacity .................................................................................. 2-21
2.5.3.
Feedstock and Product Inputs.......................................................... 2-22
2.5.4.
Product Outputs and Target Markets ............................................... 2-23
2.5.5.
Waste and Hazardous Products ....................................................... 2-25
2.5.6.
Utility Requirements ......................................................................... 2-25
Coal Gasification Plant ................................................................................... 2-25
2.6.1.
Description of Process Technologies and Licensors ........................ 2-25
2.6.2.
Plant Capacity .................................................................................. 2-27
2.6.3.
Feedstock and Product Inputs.......................................................... 2-28
2.6.4.
Product Outputs and Target Markets ............................................... 2-29
2.6.5.
Waste and Hazardous Products ....................................................... 2-29
2.6.6.
Utility Requirements ......................................................................... 2-29
Power Plant .................................................................................................... 2-30
2.7.1.
Plant Capacity .................................................................................. 2-30
2.7.2.
Major Plant Scope ............................................................................ 2-31
Drawings and Data ......................................................................................... 2-32
iv
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
vi
vii
viii
ix
2.1.ii
2.3.ii
2.3.iii Chinas Steel Industry: An Update, East Asia Institute Background Brief No. 501,
2.4.i
2.4.ii
2.4.iii Handbook of Explosion Prevention and Protection, edited by Martin Hatlwig and
Henrikus Steen, pub. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH. Section 2.8.2.6 Direct Reduced Iron
(DRI)
2.5.i
Feasibility Study for a 1.0 MTPA Cement Plant, FL Smidth for Yalgun International
Mongolia
2.5.ii
4.1.i
4.2.i
4.2.ii
Manual for Railway Engineering, Chapters 5 and 14, 2011, AREMA, (American
Railway Engineering and Maintenance-Of-Way Association)
5.1.ii
5.4.i
5.4.ii
AIACC Working Paper No. 13, Observed Climate Change in Mongolia, Batima P.,
Natsagdorj L., Gombluudev P., Erdenetsetseg B., June 2005
5.4.iii Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 22, Second Edition, Urban Drainage Design
Manual, USDOT Federal Highway Administration, 2001
7.2.i
1.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Master Plan study document presents the results of a study undertaken by Bechtel in
accordance with an agreement with the National Development and Innovation Committee of
Mongolia (NDIC). The purpose of the study was to analyze a potential industrial park in the
vicinity of Sainshand, Mongolia comprised of a slate of plants included in the study basis. In
the study, Bechtel examined the proposed facility and the development process to assist
NDIC and the Government of Mongolia (GoM) to move the industrial park project forward.
This work product is preliminary in nature and (i) does not contain the amount of information
needed to satisfy local or international funding institutions or other potential project finance
lenders and local and international investors and (ii) should not in any event be used as a
basis for capital investment by NDIC without NDIC having obtained further information and
analysis including detailed studies, front end engineering and detailed cost estimates and
other necessary information as may be required.
1.1.
REPORT CONTENTS
Sections 2 through 12 of this Report are summarized in the following Sections 1.2 through
1.12. These sections contain the results of the analysis of the base configuration of the
Sainshand Industrial Park. This base configuration may not ultimately be incorporated into
the park. In particular, the economic analysis demonstrated that certain plants contained in
the base configuration may not be economically attractive for investors. Based on the
findings of this study, NDIC and the GoM may change the configuration from the base. Any
such changes are not incorporated in the base report Sections 2 through 12. Section 13,
Addenda, contains some discussion and consideration of those potential park configuration
changes.
1.2.
INDUSTRIAL PLANTS
The Coking Coal Plant, with a product capacity of 2.0 million tonnes per year (MTPA), would
produce metallurgical coke from a feed of high grade coal from the Tavan Tolgoi mine. The
Heat Recovery process was chosen over the other prevalent technology, Byproduct,
because Heat Recovery coke ovens are generally considered less expensive to build, easier
to operate, more economical, and more environmentally friendly than Byproduct coke ovens.
The main flow path of the Coking Coal Plant is depicted by Figure 1-1.
Plant inputs and outputs are summarized below:
Inputs
o Coking Coal - 2.9 MTPA
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
1-1
o Lime (for Flue Gas Desulfurization [FGD]) - 22 thousand tonnes per year (kTPA)
o Boiler Feed Water (for steam production) 5.9 MTPA
o Industrial Water 971 kTPA
o Electrical Power 13 MW
Outputs
o Metallurgical Coke 2.0 MTPA
o Gypsum (from FGD) 44 kTPA
o HP Steam 5.7 MTPA (equivalent to 200 MW of electric power)
The coke product would be exported by rail to the blast furnace steel industries in China,
Russia, Korea, Japan, or other Asian markets. The coal would be transported to Sainshand
by rail in dedicated unit trains.
COPPER SMELTER
Copper Smelter, with a feed capacity of 1.0 MTPA of copper concentrate, would produce
solid copper (cathode). A simplified flow diagram is shown in Figure 1-2. Plant inputs and
outputs are summarized below:
Inputs
o Copper Concentrate 1.0 MTPA
o Lime - 15 kTPA
o Silica 82 kTPA
o Oxygen 330 kTPA
o Boiler Feed Water 672 kTPA
o Industrial Water 2.8 MTPA
o LP Steam 84 kTPA
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
1-2
1-3
The Iron Ore Pelletizing Plant, with a product capacity of 4.5 MTPA, would produce iron ore
pellets suitable for feed to a DRI Plant from iron ore beneficiated (concentrated) at the mine.
1-4
Output
o Iron Ore Pellets 4.5 MTPA
The iron ore pellet product is usually fed to a Direct Iron Reduction (DRI) plant. The
DRI plant considered for this study in the Sainshand Industrial Park would consume
3.6 MTPA, and the balance would be exported to DRI plants located elsewhere in
Mongolia or internationally.
1.2.4.
DRI/HBI PLANT
The Direct Reduction Iron/Hot Briquetted Iron (DRI/HBI) Plant would process iron ore pellets
from the Iron Ore Pelletizing Plant into an iron product suitable for feed to an electric arc
furnace for steel making. The iron ore is reduced to iron by contact and reaction with a
reducing gas consisting of carbon monoxide and hydrogen from the Coal Gasification Plant
at Sainshand.
Iron Ore Pellets
Top Gases
CO2 + H2o
Reducing Gas
H2 1 Co
Temperature
~ 930c
Reduction Zone
Fe2O3 + 3H2 ? 2Fe + 3H2O
Fe2O3 + 3CO ? 2Fe + 3CO2
Carburization
CH4 + 3Fe ? Fe3C + 2H2
2CO + 3Fe ? Fe3 + CO2
1-5
As discussed in the Economic Analysis (Section 11), reducing gas from coal gasification
tends to be significantly more costly than reducing gas from natural gas. The Sainshand
DRI/HBI plant, with no available source of natural gas, would likely be at an economic
disadvantage to plants based on natural gas. Without significant governmental support in
the form of incentives, pricing guarantees, etc., the DRI/HBI plant may not be attractive to
potential investors/owners. NDIC should consider and investigate alternates to the DRI/HBI
plant, such as:
Iron ore reduction plants based on other technologies such as Outotec SL/RN or
Kobe ITmk3 which produce reduced iron through direct contact between iron ore and
coal
A smaller capacity plant targeted for the domestic Mongolian steel industry
1.2.5.
CEMENT PLANT
The Cement Plant would process limestone and gypsum from the Sainshand area into
cement, primarily for use within Mongolia. A previously performed feasibility study for a
1 MTPA cement plant by FL Smidth for Yalguun International LLC was used as the basis for
this study. A simplified flow diagram is shown in Figure 1-5, and a summary of plant inputs
and output follows:
Inputs
o Limestone 1.31 MTPA
o Thermal Coal - 127 kTPA
o Gypsum 50 kTPA
o Basalt 250 kTPA
o Steel Slag or Volcanic Ash 16 kTPA
o Clay (Alumina) 40 kTPA
o Industrial Water 200 kTPA
o Electrical Power 22 MW
Output
o Type I & II Cement 1.0 MTPA
1.2.6.
The coal gasification plant would produce synthetic reducing gas for the DRI/HBI Plant. It
would also supply fuel gas for general use in the park, and fuel for power production. Many
coal gasification technologies are available: this study uses SES technology because of its
tolerance of coal feed with high ash content, and for other reasons indicated in the report
(see Section 2.6.1). Plant inputs and outputs are summarized below:
Inputs
o Thermal Coal 1.5 MTPA
o Oxygen 1.1 MTPA
o Boiler Feed Water 3.2 MTPA
o Electrical Power 37 MW
1-6
Outputs
o DRI Reducing Gas (CO & hydrogen) 1.1 MTPA
o Fuel Gas 300 MW
o Ash 115 kTPA
o HP Steam 1.6 MTPA
o Waste Water 1.18 MTPA
o Acid Gas (sulfur content) 9.7 kTPA
1-7
POWER PLANT
The Power Plant would produce 278 MW of electrical power from steam turbine driven
generators to satisfy the internal needs of the industrial park. 215 MW are derived from
steam exports from the process plants, and the balance would be produced by boilers fired
with coal gasification synthesis gas.
The economic analysis shows that the relatively small boilers are likely not economically
viable, and NDIC should consider a different configuration for power supply to the park.
Options include:
Elimination of the synthesis gas boilers, and production of power from the process
steam in the individual process plants. This would require power import from the grid
to satisfy the needs of the industrial park, and this configuration was economically
evaluated in the study and results are presented in Section 11.
Installation of a larger (700 to 1000 MW) coal fired power plant, with excess power
exported to the grid for sale.
1.3.
UTILITIES
Central and common utility plants would be provided in the industrial park to provide utility
service to the process plants. Utility systems included:
Power Distribution system to connect to the national grid and supply power to each
facility.
Raw Water treatment and water distribution system to provide industrial quality
water. The industrial park, as configured, would consume 11.8 MTPA of raw,
untreated water. The study basis was raw water from deep wells not yet specifically
identified or classified for the study. NDIC should have the water source identified,
adequate reservoir and flow capacity confirmed, and water quality analyzed to
provide a basis for design in the next phase of development of the industrial park.
Potable Water is produced from the treated raw water by further purification and
treatment. The potable water system is sized to supply the needs of the industrial
park, and the new community that would be needed to house the population influx
due to the park. The capacity of the potable water purification system is 3000 cubic
meters per day.
Industrial Water would be produced from the treated raw water by adjusting the pH
so that it is suitable for storage and plant use. The capacity of the industrial water
system is 1076 cubic meters per hour.
Boiler Feed Water would be produced by further treatment of the industrial water for
suitability for use in boilers. The capacity of the boiler feed water treatment plant is
470 cubic meters per hour. Including recycled condensate, the capacity of the boiler
feed water system is 1700 cubic meters per hour.
Fire Water is industrial water that is stored, pressurized, and delivered to the
boundary of each plant in an underground piping system.
A Central Utility Heating system would use heat from the power plant to provide hot
water for comfort heating to the industrial park, and to the existing and new
Sainshand communities. The existing heating system for Sainshand is in need of
replacement, and would be decommissioned. The capacity of the new system is 100
MW, with a water circulation rate of 2,150 cubic meters per hour.
Interconnection piping for the Steam System would be provided to deliver steam to
and from the plants.
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
1-8
Fuel Gas, from the Coal Gasification Plant, would be distributed and provided for
use in the plants.
Oxygen and Nitrogen would be produced by an Air Separation Unit (ASU) and
distributed to plant users. Coal Gasification and the Copper Smelter would be the
predominant users of oxygen, and nitrogen is provided for general use as an inert
gas. The ASU design capacity is 211 tonnes per hour of oxygen, and nitrogen is
produced as a byproduct, with an estimated park consumption of 20 tonnes per hour.
Waste Water Treatment would receive waste water flows from the park facilities and
treat the water for reuse as industrial water. Each individual plant would treat its
waste water to effluent quality before discharge to the common waste water
treatment plant. The estimated capacity of the system is 860 cubic meters per hour
of received waste water.
The Storm Water system would collect rain and runoff water that enters the park
boundary, impound the water, and send it to the water treatment system for use.
The Sanitary Waste Water system would receive and treat sanitary sewer flows
from the industrial park and both the existing and new Sainshand communities, and
would return the water to the industrial park waste water treatment system for recycle
and reuse as industrial water. The existing Sainshand sanitary sewer system would
be abandoned. The estimated capacity of the new system is 156 cubic meters per
hour.
1.4.
1.4.1.
RAIL SYSTEM
The Sainshand Industrial Park would be connected to the Mongolian rail system. The park
would receive most bulk raw materials via rail from mines within Mongolia, and also the
majority of products would be transported from the park via rail. The rail capacities are
based on 10 operating months per year, to allow for rail system maintenance and weather or
other service interruptions. Likewise, the capacities and schedule are based on 6 days per
week to allow for routine maintenance. A summary of projected rail shipments follows:
Rail Incoming Volume
o 9 trains per day, 6 days per week, 10 months per year
o 40 to 80 (average 66) cars per train
o 12.2 MTPA
Rail Outgoing Volume
o 5 to 6 trains per day, 6 days per week (40 per week)
o 60 cars per train
o 7.1 MTPA
The park would include a rail yard for receiving and marshaling trains, and a bulk storage
area with a capacity of two months storage for both the feed and product materials. Inputs
would be offloaded into the storage area, and intermittently batch transferred to the
individual plants. Likewise, products would be intermittently batch transferred from the
plants into the storage area, from which trains would be loaded. Figure 1-6 shows an
overview of the Sainshand rail facilities.
1-9
HIGHWAYS
Highways and roads would be required for access to the park for personnel and materials
and supplies not delivered by rail. Heavy truck deliveries are summarized in Table 1-1
below.
Trucks per year
Trucks per/day
Cement Plant
31,867
738
123
Iron Pellets
2,267
53
DRI Plant
168
Coke Plant
728
17
Copper Smelter
3,237
76
13
TOTAL
38,267
888
148
1-10
1.5.
SITE DEVELOPMENT
The site development is a crucial early works activity to prepare the area prior to
construction of the industrial facilities. Site development would provide a level area
sufficient for plants, including future expansion, and for rail and roads. An overview of the
plot is shown in Figure 1-8, and a closer view of the industrial area is in Figure 1-9.
1-11
1-12
1.6.
ALTERNATE SITES
Part of the Sainshand Industrial Park Master Plan Study is a differential economic analysis
of locating selected plants at other sites within Mongolia closer or adjacent to the major raw
material source. The selected plants and the alternate locations, shown in Figure 1-11, are:
The Iron Ore Pellets Plant and DRI/HBI Plant located near Darkhan, adjacent to an
existing iron based industrial area. The major proven reserves of iron ore are in
northern Mongolia near Darkhan.
The Copper Smelter located adjacent to the Oyu Tolgoi mine where the copper ore
is mined.
The Coke Plant located adjacent to the Tavan Tolgoi mine where the metallurgical
coal is mined.
1.7.
COMMUNITY FACILITIES
Development of the Sainshand Industrial Park would create a drastic increase in the
population of the Sainshand and Dornogobi region. The following criteria were used to
estimate the population increase:
Average Mongolian Household Size:
4.1
Percentage Mongolian Employees:
90%
Percentage of Mongolian Employees with families: 100%
Percentage of Expatriate Employees:
10%
Percentage of Expatriate Employees with families: 0%
Influx population ratio:
1.0
The population influx ratio is the number of people employed outside of the park for each
person employed in the park.
Table 1-2 summarizes the estimated population increase, and the population of the new
community required to house them.
270
295
136
270
161
122
515
395
100
Expatriate
Employees
(10%)
27
30
14
27
17
12
52
40
10
Mongolian
Employees
(90%)
243
265
122
243
144
110
463
355
90
Mongolian
Family
Members
756
827
383
756
451
346
1442
1106
285
453
45
408
1404
1857
2717
275
2448
7756
10,473
10,473
20,946
~ 21,000
Total
Employees
Project
Cement Plant
Iron Pellets Plant
DRI Plant
Coke Plant
Power Plant
Gasification Plant
Copper Smelter
Copper Refinery
Rail Repair Facil.
Common Facilities
20% of above
Total Direct Population
Influx Population @ 1.0
Total Community
Population
Total
Population
1026
1122
519
1026
612
468
1957
1501
385
1-14
Number
of Units
488
319
11%
Unit Size
(M2)
185
205
2 bedroom
3 bedroom
% of total housing
Attached Houses
1 bedroom
550
100
2 bedroom
550
120
3 bedroom
550
135
% of total housing
23%
Apartments
1 bedroom
1620
80
2 bedroom
1620
90
3 bedroom
1620
105
% of total housing
66%
Total Units
7317
Table 1-3: Community Housing
Lot Size
(M2)
700
700
420
420
420
100
100
100
Facility
Number Ratio per Population
Education
Day Care
5
1: 4,000
Primary School
3
1: 6,250
Middle School
2
1: 11,000
High School
2
1: 11,000
Health
Clinic
7
1: 3,000
Hospital
1
1: 15,000
Social Institutions
Library
2
1: 10,000
Community Center
2
1: 10,000
Public Institutions
Post Office
4
1: 5000
Police Station
3
1: 7500
Fire Station
1
1: 15,000
Government Offices
3
1: 7,500
Recreation
Sports/Athletic Center
3
1: 6,000
Shops and Retail
Local Merchants
70
1: 300
Local Markets
7
1: 3,000
Neighborhood Market
4
1: 5,000
City-wide Mall
1
1: 20,000
Table 1-4: Community Facilities
The location, layout, and relationship to the existing Sainshand City are shown in Figure
1-12.
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
1-15
1.8.
SUSTAINABILITY
Water is a key, limited and non-renewable resource in the region of the industrial
park. Further studies should be conducted to prove a suitable source for water, and
initiatives to bring renewable surface water to the region should continue to be
examined and pursued.
Cultural heritage and any archeological sites of the region should be preserved,
and studies should be conducted to ascertain and mitigate any negative impact.
Local residents should be engaged early in the development process, so that the
positive and potential negative impacts of the industrial park can be understood and
accepted, and so that the local population benefits and participates in the project.
The influx of people for construction and plant operations should be planned and
managed.
1-16
1.9.
PROJECT SCHEDULE
Start of Engineering
Infrastructure
Site Development
Rail Facilities
Utilities
Community Facilities
Process Plants
Cement
Coking Coal
Project Month
0
8
12
24 (Cement in month 1)
Project Month
Start of Construction
Complete
10
12
20
20
21
21
33
34
52
53
59
76
1
24
13
38
Power
34
45
Coal Gasification
Copper
Iron Pellets
DRI/HBI
24
31
31
34
37
42
45
49
43
75
85
(1st power 75)
79
83
75
75
1.10.
Bechtel estimated the capital cost of the facilities. Key estimating factors include:
All costs are expressed in US dollars, with value as of September 2011. Any forward
escalation is included in the economic analysis.
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
1-17
The estimate basis and the estimating process was consistent with a Bechtel Class 5
EPC capital cost estimate with an expected accuracy of minus 10% to plus 40%.
The construction labor force is assumed to be 10% Mongolian and 90% temporary
workers from other Asian countries, such as China or Philippines.
The construction management staff is 85% Asian, and 15% western. Construction
management total hours are estimated as 15% of the construction labor hours.
Average construction management wage rate is $39 per hour.
The capital cost estimates includes a contractor fee of 8% of EPC contract value,
and contingency of 15% has also been included.
1.11.
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
Bechtel developed an Economic Model to evaluate the economic feasibility of SIP based on
forecasted after-tax, nominal cash flows to international investors over an assumed
economic life of 30 years. The analysis assumed that the Coke Plant, Iron Pellet Plant,
DRI/HBI Plant, Copper Smelter, and Cement Plant would sell all of their products at
prevailing market prices in domestic or export markets, and that the Coal Gasification Plant
would sell synthesis gas (syngas) and the Power Plant would sell power within SIP at prices
that would result in an acceptable return on investment. The analysis initially assumed that
the capital costs and operating costs of common facilities and utilities would be recovered
through charges to the industrial plants. As described below, this assumption was modified
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
1-18
15.9%
15.2%
Not Profitable
Not Profitable
0.7%
Not Profitable
DRI/HBI
Not Profitable
Not Profitable
Cement
6.5%
Not Profitable
Coking Coal
Copper
Iron Pelletizing
Supplying power from the grid, instead of constructing a dedicated power plant
A 50% increase in the proposed capacity of the copper smelter to take advantage of
economies of scale in construction and production
Table 1-8 shows the estimated progressive improvement in expected unleveraged after-tax
IRR for each industrial plant that is expected to sell its output outside SIP under different
scenarios. To differentiate between different levels of government support that may be
required to make different industrial plants economically feasible, unleveraged after-tax
IRRs are not shown for additional scenarios once the expected unleveraged after-tax IRR
exceeded 10%-12%, the range foreign investors may expect.
1-19
Scenario
Coke
Plant
Iron Ore
Pelletizing
Plant
Copper
Smelter
DRI/HBI
Plant
10.8%
10.4%
6.1%
1.8%
N/A
12.0%
11.4%
8.1%
4.9%
N/A
10.5%
6.6%
N/A
11.6%
7.1%
N/A
7.1%
N/A
7.1%
6.1%
7.1%
10.4%
4.2%
N/A After-tax unleveraged IRR cannot be calculated due to poor project economics
With power supplied from the grid and with the cost of infrastructure borne by the
GoM, the Cement Plant and the Coke Plant may be economically feasible without
further government incentives.
Under the Revised Base Case assumptions (grid power and GoM-owned
infrastructure), the Iron Ore Pelletizing Plant would likely require tax incentives
(exemption from VAT and customs duty on EPC cost, zero VAT rating for iron ore
pellet exports, and Mongolian tax holiday) to become economically feasible.
Also under the Revised Base Case assumptions, increasing the capacity of the
Copper Smelter and incorporating government incentives in the scenarios
considered are not expected to be sufficient to make the project economically
feasible. According to the sensitivity analysis (see Section 11.16), reduction in
capital cost and/or increase in commodity pricing are required.
In general, project economics are most sensitive to changes in commodity prices and capital
costs.
In summary, key conclusions from the economic analysis of this study include:
An integrated, dedicated power plant at SIP, specified in the study, is not expected to
generate electricity at a competitive price; supplying power from the grid appears to
be a more economic option for the SIP industrial plants as a whole.
The costs of infrastructure and utilities are significant, and recovery of the costs
through infrastructure charges and utility charges will likely cause most projects at
SIP and the alternate sites to not be economically feasible. GoM ownership and
financing of infrastructure and utilities is critical to enhancing the economics of most
industrial plants.
1-20
The proposed Coking Coal Plant may be economically feasible at SIP or Tavan
Tolgoi, if the GoM provides basic infrastructure and utilities.
With power supplied by the grid, the Cement Plant proposed for SIP may also be
economically feasible if the GoM provides basic infrastructure and utilities.
With appropriate GoM incentives (such as exemption from VAT and customs duty,
income tax holiday, provision of infrastructure, and subsidized of water costs), the
Iron Ore Pelletizing Plant proposed for SIP may be economically feasible.
Under Base Case assumptions, the expected economics of proposed copper smelter
may only be marginal, even with GoM provided infrastructure and tax incentives. An
increase in capacity, significant improvement in revenue assumptions, and/or
reduction in capital cost may be required to improve project economics sufficiently to
attract private investment.
Of all the industrial plants proposed for SIP, the DRI/HBI plant is expected to have
the least favorable economics. According to our analysis, the DRI/HBI plant is not
expected to be economically feasible unless it can procure syngas at less than $3
per MMBtu (2011 US$).
Economics at the alternate sites are not expected to be significantly different from
those at SIP, provided that the GoM provides the same level of infrastructure
support.
1.12.
1-21
A sustainable plan for attracting and training workers for the park and required
support facilities (hospitals, schools, etc.)
Availability of an Environmental Impact Assessment that covers the entire SIP park
complex, meets World Bank and Mongolian environmental standards, and
addresses the environmental impact of the park with recommendations to mitigate
impacts
With a strong regulatory, legal, and institutional foundation for the park and with enabling
outside-the-park and inside-the-park common infrastructure in process, the GoM may be
able to attract investor interest in the SIP. The GoM should work with its advisory team to
identify its preferred commercial approach for the planned common inside-the-park
infrastructure projects and the industrial plants. In part, this process should be based on
feedback received from prospective international investors and lenders in meetings with the
GoM and its commercial advisor after SIP approval by the GoM.
Three alternative ownership models are available for SIP projects: wholly-government
(public) ownership; wholly-private ownership; or joint venture ownership between the GoM
and one or more private investors. In a concession project structure, the government
typically retains legal ownership, but beneficial ownership resides with the concessionaire
and is administered under the terms of a concession agreement. Consequently, a
concession may be used to achieve many of the same objectives as wholly-private
ownership. The choice of ownership model for a particular SIP project will largely be
determined by the nature and economic viability of the project, scale of the project, status of
the park build-out during project implementation and operation, and GoM objectives.
Common inside-the-park infrastructure needed to support start of construction of the
industrial plants (Tier 1) will likely need to be implemented as wholly-government owned
projects with the potential to transition to a concession structure after park build-out.
Common inside-the-park infrastructure that can be deferred until the later stages of the park
implementation process or that can be packaged with park industrial facilities (Tier 2) may
be implemented as wholly-private or joint venture projects on a concession basis if they can
recover their costs through charges to the industrial plants. To the extent that such costs
threaten the economic viability of the industrial plants, these projects may need to be
implemented as wholly-government owned projects with the potential to transition to a
concession structure in the future. Industrial plants are planned to be implemented as
wholly-private or joint venture projects on a concession basis.
Wholly-government owned projects are planned to be financed on the GoMs balance sheet
on a sovereign-credit basis and funded from a mix of internal sources and external
borrowings. External funding sources may include the Asian Development Bank, European
Bank for Reconstruction and Development, export credit agencies, or national development
banks. Wholly-private or joint venture concession projects may be financed on a corporate
credit basis (in which the concessionaire guarantees loan repayment) or on a limited
recourse project finance basis (in which loan repayment is secured by project revenues and
underpinned by a network of contracts among the project participants). A project financing
entails a more complex financing structure and consequently is usually more expensive and
time-consuming to implement and presents greater financing execution risk than other
financing alternatives.
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
1-22
set forth in the Important Notice.
1.13.
RECOMMENDATIONS
SIP is a commercially and technically challenging project that, if successful, has the
potential to catalyze Mongolian industrialization. To achieve a successful outcome, Bechtel
recommends the following:
Evaluate Iron Ore Processing Options
The economic analysis indicates that a DRI Plant using reducing gas derived form coal
gasification may not be economically attractive. NDIC should consider and investigate
alternates to the DRI/HBI plant, such as:
Iron ore reduction plants based on other technologies such as Outotec SL/RN or
Kobe ITmk3 which produce reduced iron through direct contact between iron ore and
coal
A smaller capacity plant targeted for the domestic Mongolian steel industry
Increase Copper Plant Capacity
The plant capacity of 300 kTPA copper product specified in the study basis is less than the
largest single-train copper smelters. As larger facilities tend to be more economically
attractive, consideration should be given to increasing the capacity to 450 to 500 kTPA
product.
Reconfigure Electric Power Supply
The study basis of a small power plant to meet only the needs of the industrial park is likely
not economically viable. Reliable, grid power should be used for the industrial park, or a
larger power plant, supplying grid power should be considered.
Review Environmental Standards
Environmental standards and policies should be evaluated, and modified if necessary, to
ensure that they are in accordance with those accepted by the world community and
international lenders, and encompass the scope of the industrial park development.
Hire a Strong Advisory Team
Complex, first-of-a-kind projects for a country may succeed or fail based on the strength of
their advisory team. The GoM should hire an experienced team of outside advisors to
provide specialized expertise during the development period to complement GoM
capabilities and resources. These advisors should include the Project Management
Contractor (PMC), commercial advisor, legal advisor, and possibly a financial advisor.
Get Early Feedback from Prospective Lenders and Investors
The preliminary commercial and financing structures presented in this Master Plan Report
should be vetted in meetings with prospective international lenders, investors, and park
developers and then refined based on their feedback.
Implement International Standard Regulatory and Legal Frameworks
The GoM should work with its legal advisor to evaluate Mongolias current regulatory and
legal frameworks against international standards for similar undertakings to identify potential
changes that would assist Mongolia to effectively compete for the significant amounts of
investment required to fund SIP.
Provide a Well-defined Package of Investor Incentives
The GoM should work with its advisory team to evaluate Mongolias current package of
investor incentives to determine if they are capable of attracting the required amount of
investment for SIP and achieving a net economic benefit for Mongolia.
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
1-23
1-24
INDUSTRIAL PLANTS1
2.
Except where stated otherwise, the design basis, capacity, feed inputs, outputs and utility
requirements contained in this Section are based on data and design bases provided by
NDIC or on behalf of NDIC by other agencies of the Government of Mongolia contacted by
Bechtel at NDICs direction. Where specific data was not so provided, Bechtel has
developed further details from the data that was provided, and made assumptions to
complete the configuration parameters. The objective of these assumptions is to specify an
industrial park that meets the overall intent, as conveyed to Bechtel, of NDIC for the
proposed facility. Except where stated otherwise, NDIC has previously approved such
developments and assumptions by approval of previous task reports (including any changes
directed by NDIC) submitted to NDIC as part of the scope of work of this Master Plan Study.
This report describes the industrial plants anticipated at the time of this Report pursuant to
design basis and assumptions outlined in the preceding paragraph. The number and type
and design of industrial plants and anticipated utilities may change as further analysis,
preliminary/front end engineering, detailed design, further investigations, and other
necessary data and services are performed which are not part of the scope of this Master
Plan Report, but which are necessary before making any capital investment decisions.
2.1.
The Coke Plant at Sainshand will process metallurgical coal mined in Mongolia to produce
metallurgical coke.
2.1.1.
Metallurgical coke is the solid non-volatile component left after coal is heated to volatize and
remove unstable components. Coke making is a batch process and coke ovens are
arranged in linear batteries to use automated loading and unloading equipment and
standardized production processes.
There are two commonly used technologies for producing metallurgical coke:
Except where specifically stated otherwise in this Report, the information contained in this Report was provided to Bechtel or
its affiliates by NDIC as the Client or third parties. In such instances, Bechtel and its affiliates have relied on the information
provided by the Client or third parties without seeking to separately confirm, verify, validate or otherwise examine the
information to determine its accuracy, completeness or feasibility.
2-1
In brief, heat-recovery coke ovens are generally considered to be less expensive to build,
easier to operate, more economical and more environmentally friendly than by-product coke
ovens.
Bechtel has recommended and NDIC has approved the selection of a heat-recovery coke
making process technology as the basis for the Sainshand Coke Plant because of the above
stated environmental and economic advantages of this technology.
Other significant technologies to be employed in the Sainshand Coke Plant:
2
3
Stampinga process to consolidate the coke charge before it is introduced into the
coke oven. Stamping allows lower quality coking coals to be used but also helps to
minimize the discharge of fugitive dust when the coke is discharged from the coke
oven.2
Coke Dry Quenching (CDQ)3 a process in which the coke charge is cooled by a
circulating gas to a temperature at which it can be handled by conveying equipment.
CDQ minimizes consumption of water and facilitates the recovery of heat from the
coke charge. Cooling the coke charge with water (instead of CDQ) would consume
approximately 2 to 2.5 m3 of water per ton of coke and the heat from the hot coke
would be lost to the heat of vaporization of the water. Heat recovered by CDQ will
be used to produce steam available for sale to the Sainshand Electric Power Plant
(see section 2.7 below). Furthermore, cooling by CDQ instead of water will avoid
potential problems with freeze-up during times of sustained low ambient
temperatures.
This is an assumption made by Bechtel to meet NDICs stated intent and yield potentially feasible facilities.
This is an assumption made by Bechtel to meet NDICs stated intent and yield potentially feasible facilities.
2-2
SunCoke, a U. S. based supplier of coke oven technology and a producer of coke for
use in the steel industry. SunCoke has built and operates coke ovens in the U. S.
states of Virginia, Ohio and Indiana and in Brazil. SunCokes operations are
described on the SunCoke website home page, http://www.suncoke.com/index.php.
As reported on their web-site, SunCoke has recently completed construction of a
one-million ton/year coke plant at Haverhill, Ohio, in the United States. The coke
from the Haverhill plant is sold to AK Steel located nearby. Part of the recovered
steam is sold to a chemical plant located next door to the Haverhill coke plant and
electricity generated from part of the recovered steam is sold to American Electric
Power.
Bechtel requested budgetary proposals from both SunCoke and ThyssenKrupp-Uhde for the
Coke Plant at Sainshand. Bechtels E-mail Request for Proposal (RFP) together with the
Scope of Work and the Data Sheet as technical basis for the RFP are in Reference 2.1.iii.
The Scope of Work and Data Sheet were prepared as a preliminary specification based on
NDIC requirements in order to obtain a budget proposal and as such neither the Scope of
Work, Data Sheet nor the budget responses from the suppliers, are sufficient to be used as
a basis for any capital investment without further information and analysis including detailed
studies, front end engineering and detailed cost estimates and other necessary information
as required (and which does not form part of the scope of this Master Study). Section 10
further refers: pricing is indicative only.
An indicative budgetary proposal (Reference 2.1.iv) has been received from SunCoke. The
SunCoke budgetary proposal has limited technical information and does not include coke
dry-quenching as requested in Bechtels RFP.
Uhde has not provided a budgetary proposal in direct response to Bechtels RFP but Uhde
had previously prepared a Feasibility Study for a Heat Recovery Coke Plant for TT Coke,
LLC, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia. This Feasibility Study was prepared under a contract between
Industrial Corporation of Mongolia (ICM) and Uhde. Bechtel has obtained a copy of this
Feasibility Study Report directly from ICM subject to confidentiality agreements between
Bechtel both ICM and Uhde that allows the conditional use of data (Confidential Data) from
the Feasibility Study Report for the preparation of the Master Plan Study for Sainshand
Industrial Park. This Confidential Data may not be further used without the consent of ICM,
Uhde and Bechtel.
Because it has been prepared specifically for the Sainshand area and is technically more
complete than the SunCoke Proposal, Bechtel has used and relied upon Uhdes Feasibility
Study Report as the basis for the development of the Coke Oven portion of this Master Plan
Study.
If the Sainshand Coke Plant should proceed as a project, Bechtel recommends that both
SunCoke and Uhde be considered as potential suppliers to the project. Any other suitable
and potential suppliers should also be considered. Bechtel does not represent that the
above named suppliers are the only suitable and potential suppliers.
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
2-3
PLANT CAPACITY
A Sainshand Coke Plant of 2.0 million tonnes annual capacity4 would be comparable in size
to other major coke plants around the world. Such a plant should be of sufficient size to be
of interest to the potential suppliers described in Section 2.1.1 preceding. A plant of such
capacity could (subject to confidentiality restrictions) use designs based on similar size
plants already operating.
Product output and target markets are discussed in Section 2.1.4 following.
The Scope of Work for the Budgetary RFP in Reference 2.1.iii requests that the plant be
constructed in four phases of 500,000 tonnes per annum (TPA) each. The SunCoke
Proposal (Reference 2.1.iv) suggests that there could be a ten percent savings in capital
cost for each 500,000 TPA unit constructed during the same phase. The indicative capital
cost estimate and execution schedule prepared as part of this Master Plan Study Report
assume that the Sainshand Coke Plant will be constructed as one plant of 2.0 million TPA
annual capacity in four 500,000 TPA trains constructed concurrently.
Although the estimated capital cost of constructing the Sainshand Coke Plant as provided
by SunCoke in one phase is less than its estimated capital cost of constructing the plant in
multiple phases, there would be some advantages to constructing the plant in multiple
phases. Some of these advantages are:
Constructing the plant in multiple phases would reduce the peak demand for
construction workers which in turn would reduce the cost of temporary housing for
workers, reduce the strains on the local community caused by importing and training
workers and would increase the possibility that trained workers will be transitioned
from temporary construction work to permanent employment at completion of
construction.
Constructing the plant in phases would ease the startup of the plant. There would be
cost savings in the startup of later phases because the later startups could use
trained workers from Phase 1.
The direct monetary cost savings of constructing the plant in one phase instead of multiple
phases could be substantial and should be investigated before proceeding with the
Sainshand Coke Plant as a project. Investigation of these costs is not within the scope of
this Report.
2.1.3.
Following is a list of feedstocks and inputs5 to the Sainshand Coke Plant for two million
tonnes per year coke production:
Metallurgical (Coking) Coal2,867,600 TPA (dry basis)
Boiler Feed Water to CDQ738.5 t/hour or 5,908,000 TPA
Industrial Water108.0 t/hour or 946,080 TPA
Electric Power (Consumption)12.6 megawatts (MW) or 100,800 MW-hour/year
Lime for FGD22,435 TPA
2.0 million tonnes annual capacity is an assumption made by Bechtel to meet NDICs stated intent and yield potentially
feasible facilities.
5
These are assumptions made by Bechtel to meet NDICs stated intent and yield potentially feasible facilities.
2-4
Metallurgical Coke
Metallurgical coke as blast furnace feed is one of the principal feed-stocks of the modern
steel industry. Because there is no established blast furnace steel industry in Mongolia,
metallurgical coke produced by the Sainshand Coke Plant will be exported8.
Only limited information was made available for this Report in respect of potential output and
markets, but preliminary ranking of possible markets for metallurgical coke produced at
Sainshand would be,
Second ranked would be Russia. Russia is less likely than China as a possible
market for coke produced at Sainshand because the established and well known
2-5
Third ranked as a possible market for coke produced at Sainshand would be export
to the established steel industries in Korea, Japan or other countries of Asia.
Possibility of export to other major countries of Asia is ranked lower in probability
than either China or Russia because of the length of railroad transportation from
Sainshand to sea ports in the Russian Far East or through China to sea ports along
the Chinese coast. The cost of coke shipped by rail from Sainshand to a sea port
and then by sea to Korea or Japan might be competitive if favorable freight rates and
tariffs can be negotiated with either Russia or China.
The above discussion represents suggestions only for potential development of a market for
the metallurgical coke from the Sainshand Coke Plant. A full evaluation of the metallurgical
coke market should be made before a coke plant project is initiated in Sainshand. Such a
market evaluation is beyond the scope of this Report.
Recovered Heat
Recovered heat in the form of steam or generated electrical power is usually an important
element in the economic success of a heat-recovery type coke plant. For the Sainshand
Coke Plant, it is planned that the steam will be sold at the Coke Plant boundary to the
Sainshand Electric Power Plant9.
For two million TPA coke production, Uhde has forecast10 that a total of 717 tonnes/hour
(5.736 million TPA) steam at 535C and 10 mPa will be available for sale to the Sainshand
Electric Power Plant. A sales agreement will have to be developed between the Coke Plant
and the Electric Power Plant.
2.1.5.
Flue gas from the Sainshand Coke Plant will be treated by Flue Gas Desulphurization (FGD)
and media filters to remove sulfur and particulates. The product from FGD is gypsum and
can be processed through the Sainshand Cement Plant or combined with similar product
from other Sainshand process plants for sale or disposal.
Air and water emissions from the Sainshand Coke Plant will conform to Mongolian law11.
2.1.6.
UTILITY REQUIREMENTS
Electric power and water requirements of the Coke Plant are tabulated in Section 2.1.3.
The Coke Plant will require communication services including telephone and broadband
internet access.
2-6
2.2.
COPPER SMELTER
2.2.1.
The Copper Plant at Sainshand will include the following main process areas12:
Concentrate Storage
Concentrate and Matte drying
Concentrate Smelting (FSF)
Continuous Converting (FCF)
Anode Casting
Sulfuric Acid plant
Effluent treatment Plant
Copper Refinery
Precious Metals Plant
Slag Cleaning (Slag Concentrator or Electric Furnace)
The chosen smelter process technology for the Study is Outotec FSF-FCF. This is
because, whilst there are other technology providers, Rio Tinto, developer of the Oyu Tolgoi
mine, is part owner of the FCF technology marketed by Outotec, and it is assumed that it will
likely ultimately be implemented.
Technology suppliers for the copper refinery include:
Outotec
Xstrata Technology (ISA Process & KIDD Process)
Technology suppliers for the sulfuric acid plant include the following:
Outotec (Lurgi process)
Monsanto
Chemetics
The other process facilities will have multiple options for equipment supply and will be
considered in more detail at later stages of the project.
In addition to the copper product, the Copper Plant will produce gold and silver as recovered
byproducts, and a large quantity of sulfuric acid.
2.2.2.
PLANT CAPACITY
The Copper Plant is currently envisaged to produce 300 thousand tonnes per year of
copper, in the form of copper cathode, from approximately 1 million tonnes per year of
copper concentrate. The Study basis is to be copper concentrate from Oyu Tolgoi, although
future implementation plans could also include feed from Erdenet13.
12
13
These are assumptions made by Bechtel to meet NDICs stated intent and yield potentially feasible facilities.
Information / requirement provided or specified by NDIC.
2-7
Raw material receiving will be done by common facilities, and transferred to the copper
smelter daily. The materials received by rail include the following:
Copper Concentrate
Silica Flux
Lime flux
Some consumables and utilities will be supplied by other facilities at the industrial park via
pipeline. These include:
Oxygen
Nitrogen
Diesel or Fuel Oil
Synthesis gas from Coal Gasification
The copper concentrate composition considered in this Study is the following:
Unit
2013-2015 Average
Cu
27
30
Fe
27
23
34
30
SiO2
As
ppm
327
1351
Bi
ppm
<10
<10
Sb
ppm
21
200
Pb
ppm
481
300
Au
g/t
30
10
Ag
g/t
68
64
The above data reflects the analysis of copper concentrate from the Erdenet mine, provided
by the Erdenet Mining Corporation through NDIC. Although the feed basis for the Copper
Plant is to be concentrate from the Oyu Tolgoi mine, analysis of that concentrate has not
been made available, and the Erdenet analysis is therefore used and relied upon.
2.2.4.
The products and byproducts produced by the smelter and refinery, which will be
transported out of the facility for either sale or disposal include:
Copper Cathode, 300 KTPA (transported by railcar in bundles)
Sulfuric Acid, 925 kTPA (transported by rail in tanker cars)
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
2-8
The sulfuric acid produced as a byproduct is shipped via rail tanker cars to the fertilizer
industry, where it is a feedstock. The fertilizer industries in northern China, Kazakhstan, and
Russia are likely markets for the sulfuric acid. Because of the large quantity of sulfuric acid,
a potential investor/owner will want to ensure an outlet for the acid as part of the investment
decision and project planning. According to the Global Fertilizer Trade Map published
December 2011 by the International Fertilizer Industry Association in partnership with
ICIS,China imports 1.6 million tons per year of sulfuric acid from Japan and Korea and 4.7
million tons per year of sulfur (equivalent to 14.4 million tons of sulfuric acid) from Russia,
Canada and the United Kingdom.
2.2.5.
The slag produced can be landfilled or used for fill or road base material. All waste streams
will be treated within the Copper Plant to meet effluent quality standards.
2.2.6.
UTILITY REQUIREMENTS
Utility requirements of the Copper Plant14 tabulated below are assumed to be sufficient
based on Bechtels experience with similar projects.
Copper Plant Utility Needs
Utility
Oxygen
Nitrogen
Industrial Water
Boiler Feed Water
60 bar Steam (export)
15 bar Steam (export)
5 bar Steam (import)
Fuel Gas (Synthesis Gas)
Fuel Oil
Electrical Power
Rate
42 tonnes/hr
0.25 tonnes/hour
350 m3/hour
84 m3/hour
60 tonnes/hour
11 tonnes/hour
11 tonnes/hour
5.9 MW (1.0 tonnes/hr)
1.8 tonnes/hour
42 MW
The Copper Plant will require communication services including telephone and broadband
internet access.
Drainage will be provided within the Copper Plant to direct normally expected storm water
runoff (including roof drains and parking lot runoff) to the storm water pond located within
the Copper Plant. Unusually large precipitation events will be channeled to emergency
overflow for discharge to the Sainshand Industrial Park storm drainage system.
14
Assuming 300 thousand tonnes per year of copper, in the form of copper cathode, from approximately 1 million tonnes per
year of copper concentrate.
2-9
2.3.
The Iron Ore Pelletizing Plant at Sainshand will process concentrated iron ore
fromMongolian mines into an iron ore pellet suitable for use as feed to the Direct Reduction
Iron (DRI) Process. This type of iron ore pellet is referred to as a DR Pellet and is
specifically intended as feed to the DRI Process. Although it is possible to produce iron ore
pellets as blast furnace feed, the Sainshand DR Pellet will be produced and marketed
specifically as DRI feed, either for use in DRI/HBI plants within Mongolia or exported15.
2.3.1.
Iron ore pelletizing is a well-established and proven process with a number of world-scale
operations and suppliers within Asia as well as other parts of the world. In preparing the
definition of plant requirements, Bechtel has investigated the following potential suppliers of
iron ore pelletizing technology or equipment:
Kobelco or Kobe Steel Limited (KSL) of Japan KSL has acquired the license of
Allis Chalmers of the USA and is a well-established producer of iron ore pellets as
well as a supplier of iron ore pelletizing plants. KSL cooperates with Midrex a
supplier of DRI plants. The budgetary proposal from KSL is in Reference 2.3.i.
Danieli Danieli is a global supplier of DRI plants based in Italy. Danieli could
provide an iron ore pelletizing plant as part of the supply of their DRI Plant as
described in Section 2.4 of this Report.
During the definition of plant requirements, Bechtel requested budgetary proposals from all
potential suppliers as listed above. The E-mail Request for Proposal (RFP) with the Scope
of Work and the Data Sheet are in Reference 2.3.ii. The Scope of Work and Data Sheet
were prepared as a preliminary specification based on NDIC requirements in order to obtain
a budget proposal and as such neither the Scope of Work, Data Sheet nor the budget
responses from the suppliers, are sufficient to be used as a basis for any capital investment
without further information and analysis including detailed studies, front end engineering and
detailed cost estimates and other necessary information as required (and which does not
form part of the scope of this Master Study). Section 10 further refers: pricing is indicative
only.
Neither Metso or Outotec provided a budgetary proposal (the former citing their engineering
work-load). The budgetary proposal from KSL is in Reference 2.3.i, and the budgetary
proposal from Danielli is part of the proposed supply of the DRI Plant as described in
15
Information / requirement provided or specified by NDIC or assumed from NDICs stated intent.
2-10
16
17
Reduction of the peak work force during the construction phase. The peak
construction force could be between 1,000 to 2,000 workers. Constructing the plant
in two phases would reduce the peak demand for construction workers which in turn
would reduce the cost of temporary housing for workers, reduce the strains on the
local community caused by importing and training workers and would increase the
possibility that trained workers will be transitioned from temporary construction work
to permanent employment at completion of construction.
Constructing the plant in phases would ease the startup of the plant. There would be
cost savings in the startup of Phase 2 because Phase 2 startup could use trained
workers from Phase 1.
Smaller Phase I production of 2.25 million TPA would reduce the quantity of pellets
required to be exported while the Mongolian steel industry develops to take the pellet
output. This is discussed further in Section 2.3.4 following.
Assumption made by Bechtel to meet NDICs stated intent and yield potentially feasible facilities.
Assumption made by Bechtel to meet NDICs stated intent and yield potentially feasible facilities.
2-11
According to the KSL Proposal in Reference 2.3.i, the Iron Ore Pelletizing plant will require:
Concentrated Iron Ore4,459,000 TPA
Process Water0.15 m3/t-pellets (equivalent to 1,849 m3/day at full capacity of 4.5
million TPA iron ore pellets)
Electrical Energy40 kWh/t-pellets (or 22.5 MW at full capacity)
Bentonite0.0056 t/t-pellets (or 23 TPA)
Natural gas924 MJ/t-pellets (or 144 MW at capacity)
Dolomite45,000 TPA
Iron Ore
Published sources report Mongolia to be rich in iron ore. In particular, a map in a document
produced and made available by the Mineral Resources Authority (MRA) of Mongolia
indicates iron ore deposits south of Choir and north of Sainshand, as well as in the region of
Darkhan, north of Ulaanbaatar. In 2005, Mongolia Industrialisation and Downstream
Processing Study, a report prepared by Worley-Parsons for the Ministry for Mineral
Resources and Energy of Mongolia, estimated Mongolias total country proven reserves at
427.1 million tonnes. The same reference reported only three well-explored iron ore
deposits, namely Tumurtein Deposit, Tumur Tolgoin Deposit and Bayan Golyn Deposit, all
three located in Selenge Aimag in the region of Darkhan. The report also estimated the
mineable reserves of these three deposits to be 377.1 million tonnes of iron ore.
In the meeting of 14 June 2011, the Ministry of Mineral Resources and Energy (MMRE
stated that the basis for the iron ore to feed the Sainshand Iron Ore Pelletizing Plant will be
supply from the northern range. MMRE went on to say there are iron ore deposits nearer
Sainshand but these have not yet been explored.
In a meeting organized by NDIC on 20 June 11 in Ulaanbaatar, Mr. Ts. Batbold of Beren
Group reported that his company is operating an iron ore mine and 60,000 TPA pelletizing
and DRI plant at Erdenet in Selenge Aimag, about 150 km to the west of Darkhan and about
650 km to the north-west of Sainshand. Mr. Batbold said DRI from this plant is being sold to
an electric arc furnace steel plant in Darkhan. So far as Bechtel is aware, the operation at
Erdenet is the only operating iron ore mine or iron ore processing plant within Mongolia.
This Report assumes that iron ore will be beneficiated to 60% iron on an elemental basis
before it is shipped to Sainshand. No quarrying or beneficiation equipment is included in the
capital cost estimates provided with this Report. Furthermore, it is assumed that the iron ore
is less than 0.1% sulfur, and no Flue Gas Desulphurization (FGD) facilities will be provided
as part of the Iron Ore Pelletizing Plant.
The estimated mineable reserve of 377 million tonnes in Selenge Aimag reported by the
Worley Parsons report prepared for MMRE would supply a 4.5 million TPA iron ore
pelletizing plant for a period of 84 years. Before an iron ore pelletizing project is initiated in
Sainshand, the extent and quality of the reserves in Selenge should be confirmed, first by
2-12
As explained in the introduction to this Section 2.3, the target market for Sainshand DR
Pellets will be DRI/HBI plants, either within Mongolia or exported.
According to the Worley-Parsons report, and confirmed by discussions with the various
Mongolian ministries during the site visit of June 2011, the existing steel industry in
Mongolia consists of an iron ore mine with 60,000 TPA pelletizing plant and DRI plant in
Erdenet and a 100,000 TPA electric arc furnace steel plant in Darkhan. Because of the
small size of the existing market in Mongolia, Sainshand Iron Ore Pelletizing Plant will have
to export its product from Mongolia until the local market develops to a capacity to absorb
plant production21. The distance iron ore pellets can be exported at a profit will be limited by
the price paid by the buyer at the point of delivery of iron ore pellets as compared to the cost
of production of the iron ore pellets plus the cost of shipping the iron ore pellets to the point
of delivery.
Mongolia is located between China and Russia and either of these countries could be
considered potential markets for Sainshand DR Pellets. Although export of Sainshand DR
Pellets to world markets cannot be excluded out-of-hand, it is beyond the scope of this
Report to compare production and transportation cost of Sainshand DR Pellets to the
market price that might be paid by a world-wide customer.
Russia might be a possible market for Sainshand DR Pellets but the steel industry in Russia
is centered on the Ural region approximately 3,000 km to the west of Mongolia.
Furthermore, Kazakhstan has iron ore reserves, an established steel industry, and is closer
to the established Russian steel industry. Although there is no obvious comparative
advantage that would seem to make iron ore pellets from Sainshand attractive to Russian
steel mills, Russia might offer more competitive freight rates and tariffs than China. The
Russian market for Sainshand DR Pellets should be investigated22.
Geographically, China would appear to be the most logical market for Sainshand DR
Pellets. As mentioned in Section 2.3.1, Wuhan Iron and Steel Corporation (WISCO) is
located in Hubei on the Yangtze River and Baotou Steel has a steel mill at Baotou on the
Yellow River in Inner Mongolia. Both these steel companies have established iron ore
18
Such confirmation is not a part of the scope of this Master Plan Study.
Such confirmation is not a part of the scope of this Master Plan Study.
20
Such confirmation is not a part of the scope of this Master Plan Study.
21
Assuming annual capacity of 4.5 million tonnes DR Pellets.
22
Such investigation is not a part of the scope of this Master Plan Study.
19
2-13
Concerning transportation costs, several sources have reported on the high cost of
transportation by rail in Mongolia and in particular the cost and difficulty of crossing the
Mongolian-Chinese border at Zamiin-Uud. The report by TERA on Mongolian railway
development (Reference 2.1.v) describes in detail (pages 2 through 8) the current situation
of the border crossing at Zamiin-Uud. It is not the intent of this Section (or this Report) to
address or solve the problem at Zamiin-Uud, but the cost of transiting the border will burden
the profitability of Sainshand DR Pellets (as well as other products) shipped from Sainshand
23
Such investigation is not a part of the scope of this Master Plan Study.
2-14
The chemical analysis of iron ore reserves used as the basis for this report does not indicate
the presence of any recognized hazardous materials such as asbestos, radioactive
materials or mercury. This should be confirmed by the geological investigation of the ore
body as recommended in Section 2.3.3 preceding.
Air and water emissions from the Iron Ore Pelletizing Plant will conform to Mongolian law.
In particular, as stated in Section 2.3.2, no Flue Gas Desulphurization is expected to be
required because of the low sulfur nature of the iron ore. This will require confirmation when
the final analysis of the iron ore is available.
2.3.6.
UTILITY REQUIREMENTS
Electric power, natural gas and water requirements of the Sainshand Industrial Park are
tabulated in Section 2.3.3.
The Sainshand Iron Ore Pelletizing Plant will require communication services including
telephone and broadband internet access.
Drainage will be provided within the Sainshand Iron Ore Pelletizing Plant to direct normally
expected storm water runoff (including roof drains and parking lot runoff) to a storm water
pond located within the Iron Ore Pelletizing Plant. Unusually large precipitation events will
be channeled to emergency overflow for discharge to the Sainshand Industrial Park storm
drainage system.
Sanitary sewer from occupied buildings will be collected and directed to the sanitary sewage
treatment plant in the Sainshand Industrial Park common facilities.
2.4.
DRI/HBI PLANT
The DRI/HBI Plant at Sainshand will process iron ore pellets (DR Pellets) from Sainshand
Iron Ore Pelletizing Plant into a direct reduced iron product (DRI) and subsequently into a
hot briquetted iron product (HBI). Either DRI or HBI is suitable to be fed into an electric arc
furnace for steelmaking but the HBI product (as explained in Section 2.4.5) is more suitable
for transportation to the export market.
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
2-15
The DRI process is based on reacting iron ore (in the form of the DR Pellet) with hot
hydrogen and carbon monoxide reducing gases in a shaft furnace to produce DRI. This
process is explained in Reference 2.4.i, a presentation package prepared by Posco E&C for
Industrial Corporation Mongolia (ICM), and provided to Bechtel by ICM. As reported there,
the DRI process is well proven with DRI plants established in all steel making areas of the
world. Reducing gases for DRI can be sourced from natural gas or from gas manufactured
from coal. For the Sainshand DRI/HBI Plant, reducing gases will be sourced from the
Sainshand Coal Gasification Plant25.
The Sainshand DRI/HBI Plant will process DRI into an HBI product suitable for
transportation over long distances. Section 2.4.5 explains the advantages of HBI as
compared to DRI for transport26.
In preparing the definition of plant requirements for the DRI/HBI Plant, Bechtel has
investigated the following potential suppliers:
Bechtel requested budgetary proposals from both Midrex and Danieli. Bechtels E-mail
Request for Proposal (RFP) together with the Scope of Work and the Data Sheet as
technical basis for the RFP are in Reference 2.4.ii. The Scope of Work and Data Sheet
were prepared as a preliminary specification based on NDIC requirements in order to obtain
a budget proposal and as such neither the Scope of Work, Data Sheet nor the budget
responses from the suppliers, are sufficient to be used as a basis for any capital investment
without further information and analysis including detailed studies, front end engineering and
detailed cost estimates and other necessary information as required (and which does not
form part of the scope of this Master Study). Section 10 further refers: pricing is indicative
only.
24
These are assumptions made by Bechtel to meet NDICs stated intent and yield potentially feasible facilities.
These are assumptions made by Bechtel to meet NDICs stated intent and yield potentially feasible facilities.
26
These are assumptions made by Bechtel to meet NDICs stated intent and yield potentially feasible facilities.
25
2-16
PLANT CAPACITY
A Sainshand DRI/HBI Plant of 2.5 million tonnes annual capacity would be comparable in
size to other major DRI/HBI plants around the world. Such a plant is likely to be of sufficient
size to be of interest to the potential suppliers described in Section 2.4.1 preceding. A plant
of such capacity could (subject to confidentiality restrictions) potentially use designs based
on similar size plants already operating.
Product output and target markets are discussed in Section 2.4.4 following.
The Scope of Work for the Budgetary RFP in Reference 2.4.ii requests that the plant be
constructed in two phases: Phase 1 of 1.25 million TPA capacity and Phase 2 of an
additional 1.25 million TPA capacity. The Midrex Budgetary Proposal suggests that there
would be a potential savings in capital cost by constructing one plant of 2.5 million TPA
capacity. The indicative capital cost estimate and execution schedule prepared as part of
this Report assume the DRI/HBI Plant would be constructed as one plant of 2.5 million TPA
capacity.
Although the Midrex Budgetary Proposal states that the capital cost of constructing the
DRI/HBI Plant in one phase is less than the cost of constructing the plant in two phases,
there would be some advantages to constructing the plant in two phases. The advantages
of constructing the DRI/HBI Plant in two phases would be similar to the advantages of
constructing the Iron Ore Pelletizing Plant in two phases as discussed in Section 2.3.2.
The direct monetary cost savings of constructing the plant in one phase instead of two
phases could be substantial and should be investigated before proceeding with the
Sainshand DRI/HBI Plant as a project. Quantification of these costs is not within the scope
of this Report.
2.4.3.
According to the Midrex Budgetary Proposal, the DRI/HBI Plant will require,
Iron Ore pellets (DR Pellets from the Iron Ore Pelletizing Plant)3,625,0000 TPA
Process Water3,000,000 TPA
Lime5,000 TPA
Electrical Energy150 kWh/t-DRI (or 46.9 MW)
Oxygen50,000 TPA
Reducing gas (Synfuel gas)650 Nm3/ t-DRI
Low Pressure Steam1,250,000 TPA
Iron Ore and DR Pellets
Sources of iron ore and production of DR Pellets to feed the DRI/HBI Plant are discussed in
Section 2.3.3 of this Report. Based on available information (as referenced in Section
2.3.3), Mongolia would appear to have sufficient suitable quality iron ore to provide feed
stock to the Iron Ore Pelletizing Plant for a period of 84 years. The extent and quality of the
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
2-17
As explained in the Introduction to this Section 2.4, the direct reduced iron product (either
DRI or HBI) produced at Sainshand is suitable as feedstock to electric furnace steel making.
Because the existing steel industry within Mongolia is small, the direct reduced iron product
produced in the Sainshand DRI/HBI Plant is expected to be exported as HBI until additional
steel making facilities are developed within Mongolia28. Advantages of HBI over DRI in
transport are explained in Section 2.4.5.
The potential market for HBI is similar to the potential market for Sainshand DR Pellets as
discussed in Section 2.3 and these two sections (2.3 and 2.4) should be read together.
Only limited information was made available for this Report in respect of potential output and
markets, but preliminary ranking of possible markets for HBI produced at Sainshand would
be,
27
28
Second ranked would be Russia. Russia is less likely than China as a possible
market for Sainshand HBI because the established and well known steel industry in
Russia is in the Urals, about 3,000 km distant from Mongolia. Although less likely as
a market than China, the Russian market should be investigated because a Russian
market would offer an alternative to the Chinese market and Russia might offer more
favorable tariffs and freight rates than China.
Third rank in probability as market for Sainshand HBI would be export to the
established steel industries in Korea, Japan or other countries of Asia. Possibility of
export to other major countries of Asia is ranked lower in probability than either
China or Russia because of the length of railroad transportation from Sainshand to
sea ports in the Russian Far East or through China to sea ports along the Chinese
coast. On the other hand, steel companies in Korea and Japan all import iron ore
some from as far away as west Africa and the cost of HBI shipped by rail from
Such investigation is not a part of the scope of this Master Plan Study.
These are assumptions made by Bechtel to meet NDICs stated intent and yield potentially feasible facilities.
2-18
DRI is pyrophoric: in the presence of water, DRI might spontaneously combust if not
properly passivated and ventilated.
Transport of DRI by sea is banned, but DRI can be transported by rail subject to special
precautions discussed in the following paragraph. A complete explanation of the pyrophoric
nature of DRI, as well as the precautions regarding the handling of DRI is provided in the
Handbook of Explosion Prevention and Protection (Reference 2.4.iii).
Transportation of DRI requires extra cost for special precautions and is a safety hazard as
compared to producing, storing and transporting HBI. DRI can be produced and used in an
electric furnace plant located immediately next door to the DRI plant but transportation for
longer distances by rail requires special precautions. These special precautions include
passivation of the DRI and ventilated storage. Special precautions are required not only at
the producer but during transportation and at the receiver and consumer.
The Sainshand DRI/HBI Plant will include the necessary equipment to produce HBI in order
to avoid the possible extra cost and safety hazard of production and transportation of DRI.
Air and water emissions from the DRI/HBI Plant will conform to Mongolian law. It is
assumed that no Flue Gas Desulphurization (FGS) will be required because of the low sulfur
nature of the iron ore and the reducing gas. This will require confirmation when the final
analyses of the iron ore and reducing gas are available29.
2.4.6.
UTILITY REQUIREMENTS
Electric power, natural gas and water requirements of the DRI/HBI Plant as specified in the
Midrex budgetary proposal are tabulated in Section 2.4.3.
The DRI/HBI Plant will require communication services including telephone and broadband
internet access.
Drainage will be provided within the DRI/HBI Plant to direct normally expected storm water
runoff (including roof drains and parking lot runoff) to a storm water pond located within the
DRI/HBI Plant. Unusually large precipitation events will be channeled to emergency
overflow for discharge to the Sainshand Industrial Park storm drainage system.
29
Such verification does not form part of the scope of this Master Plan Study.
2-19
2.5.
CEMENT PLANT
The Cement Plant at Sainshand will process limestone and gypsum from the Sainshand
area into Type I or Type II cement, or a Type I/II having a combination of desired properties
from each, for sale within Mongolia30. Type I and Type II cements are general purpose
cements used by the construction industry. There is expected to be a ready market for
Type I and Type II cement within Mongolia for roads and highways and other infrastructure
projects as well as the construction of new buildings and in the mining industry31.
In preparing this Section 2.5, Cement Plant, Bechtel has used information collected during
the site visit of 13 23 June 1132.
In addition to information collected during the site visit, Bechtel has used and relied upon
information from a USTDA financed feasibility study report for a 1.0 MTPA cement plant
(Reference 2.5.i). The feasibility study was prepared by F L Smidth, a U. S. supplier of
cement plant technology and equipment, for Yalguun International, LLC, of Mongolia. The
report of the feasibility study is referred to herein as the FLS Report. According to the FLS
Report, Yalguun International is involved in mineral exploration, processing, sales, and
production of construction materials and holds limestone, clay and basalt deposits within
Mongolia. The FLS Report proposes to locate the Yalguun Cement Plant near the Sugdukh
limestone deposit about 45 km to the south-east of Sainshand. Because of the proximity of
the Sugdukh deposit to Sainshand, Bechtel considers the results and conclusions of the
FLS Report applicable to a cement plant to be built at Sainshand Industrial Park.
Although the results of the FLS Report have been used for this Master Plan Study Report,
Bechtel has not independently confirmed the results of the FLS Report, nor has Bechtel
confirmed that any of the limestone, gypsum or other mineral deposits mentioned within the
FLS Report or referred to by this Report would be available as a supply of raw materials to a
cement plant at Sainshand. Source of raw materials should be verified before proceeding
with a cement plant project at Sainshand Industrial Park33.
The FLS Report is public property and can be obtained from USTDA. The FLS Report is
dated 20th December 2010 but was made available to the public on 15 August 2011.
In addition to the above sources, Bechtel has used and relied upon information from the
document entitled, Mongolia, Land of Opportunities, a production of the Government of
Mongolia, Mineral Resources Authority (MMRA).
2.5.1.
Cement manufacturing is a well-established and proven process with a number of worldscale operations and suppliers in Asia as well as other parts of the world. In preparing the
definition of plant requirements, Bechtel has investigated the following potential suppliers of
cement plant technology and equipment:
Fives FCB is based in France and has world-wide operations. An example of Fives
FCB projects is the Tula complete green field cement plant for Lafarge in Mexico.
Construction of the 1,500 tonnes per day plant started in January 2004 and was
completed in mid-February 2006 (26 months construction time.)
30
These are assumptions made by Bechtel to meet NDICs stated intent and yield potentially feasible facilities.
Based on information supplied by or on behalf of NDIC or 3rd parties.
32
This comprises information supplied by or on behalf of NDIC and by 3rd parties.
33
Such verification does not form part of the scope of this Master Plan Study.
31
2-20
CBMI based in Beijing has constructed many cement plants in China as well as other
parts of the world.
F L Smidth (FLS), based in Denmark, is a supplier of cement plants and has built
plants in North and South America as well as Europe. FLS prepared the USTDA
Report referred to in the Introduction to this Section 2.5.
KHD Cement is based in Germany and has built cement plants in Europe as well as
other parts of the world. KHD has been particularly active in Saudi Arabia and other
countries in the Middle East.
During the definition of plant requirements, Bechtel requested budgetary proposals from all
potential suppliers as listed above. The E-mail Request for Proposal (RFP) together with
the Scope of Work and the Data Sheet are in Reference 2.5.ii. The Scope of Work and
Data Sheet were prepared as a preliminary specification based on NDIC requirements in
order to obtain a budget proposal and as such neither the Scope of Work, Data Sheet nor
the budget responses from the suppliers, are sufficient to be used as a basis for any capital
investment without further information and analysis including detailed studies, front end
engineering and detailed cost estimates and other necessary information as required (and
which does not form part of the scope of this Master Study). Section 10 further refers:
pricing is indicative only.
Budgetary proposals have been received from CBMI and Polysius. These budgetary
proposals have been considered, although this Report is based on the FLS Report as
described in the Introduction to this Section 2.5.
If the cement plant should proceed as a project, Bechtel recommends that the above
suppliers be considered as potential suppliers to the project. Any other suitable and
potential suppliers should also be considered: Bechtel does not represent that the above
named suppliers are the only suitable and potential suppliers.
2.5.2.
PLANT CAPACITY
A cement plant at Sainshand with annual capacity of one million tonnes34 would be
comparable in size to other major cement plants around the world. Such a plant should
likely be of sufficient size to be of interest to the potential suppliers described in Section
2.5.1 preceding. A plant of such capacity could (subject to confidentially restrictions) use
designs based on similar size plants already operating.
Target markets for the cement produced at Sainshand are discussed in Section 2.5.4
following.
The Scope of Work for the Budgetary RFP in Reference 2.5.ii requests that the plant be
constructed in one phase of one million TPA. Although no immediate plans are made for an
additional cement plant at Sainshand, space has been allowed in the layout for an additional
one million TPA plant. According to the FLS Report, there would be no significant cost
savings in reducing the size of the cement plant from 1 million TPA.
34
2-21
According to Section 1.2.3 of the FLS Report, the Cement Plant will produce 3,000 tonnes of
clicker a day and will require:
Limestone3,876 tpd
Clay120 tpd
Slag or Volcanic Ash48 tpd
Iron Ore (Basalt)742 tpd
Gypsum150 tpd
Process Water30.8 m3/h
Potable Water4.2 m3/h
Electrical Supply for Processing Plant17,361 kVA
Electrical Consumption20 kWh/t cement produced
Emergency Electrical Supply 500 kW generator
Coal386.1 tpd (FLS Report assumes 6,083 kcal/kg heating value of coal)
Although Section 1.1 of the FLS Report provides an assessment and quarry plan for the
Cement Plant, the Cost Estimate included with this Report does not include any equipment
or facilities for mining, quarrying or transportation of raw materials from the source to the
Sainshand Cement Plant.
Following is summarized from the FLS Report.
Limestone
About 1.3 tons of limestone is used to produce a ton of cement.
The FLS Study proposes to use limestone from the Sugdukh deposit. The Sugdukh deposit
is located about 45 km south of Sainshand and about 25 km west of the village of Urguun
Soun. An Appendix to the FLS Report provides a report on a geological study performed on
the Sugdukh limestone deposit by the Mongolian Geological Central Expedition (MGCE) in
1989-1990. Borehole logs are included with MGCE Report in the Appendix to the FLS
Report.
Bechtel has not reviewed the MGCE Report for accuracy and has not
independently confirmed the results, but the map in Mongolia, Land of Opportunities
indicates limestone deposits in the area of the Sugdukh deposit.
The FLS Report predicts the Sugdkh deposit to contain about 46.802 million tons of
limestone. This would provide a feed to the Sainshand Cement Plant of about 30 years.
Because a source of limestone is critical to the profitable operation of a cement plant, the
reserves at Sugdukh should be confirmed, first by review of the MGCE Report, and second,
by a well-planned geotechnical evaluation based on the review of records. Furthermore, the
ownership of the Sigdukh deposit should be confirmed. As construction of projects start in
the Sainshand area starts, building materials will be at a premium. Title to the Sugdukh
property should be secured as well as access to the property for mining and retrieval of the
limestone35.
Silica
The FLS Report proposes to use clay and basalt deposits within 20 km of the proposed
plant site as a source of silica. Bechtels own observation during the visit to Sainshand of 16
18 June 2011 indicated that there are clay and basalt deposits within 20 km of Sainshand.
35
The actions described in this paragraph do not form part of the scope of this Master Plan Study.
2-22
Same
Iron
The FLS Report proposes to source the iron from locally available basalt. Considering that
742 tons of basalt would be required each day, iron might be more economically obtained
from iron ore. Iron ore is readily available in Mongolia as discussed in Section 2.3, Iron Ore
Pelletizing. Sources of iron ore in the Sainshand area should be investigated38.
Slag or Volcanic Ash
A source of slag or volcanic ash is not addressed by the FLS Report. Steel mill slag might
be available from the electric furnace steel mill in Darkhan, about 175 km north of Ulaan
Bator but that would require a transportation of about 575 km to Sainshand. It would be
more economical to source the material from locally available volcanic ash. Observations
by Bechtel during the visit of 16 18 June 2011 to the Sainshand area indicated that such
ash might be available but this should be confirmed39.
2.5.4.
36
The actions described in this paragraph do not form part of the scope of this Master Plan Study.
The actions described in this paragraph do not form part of the scope of this Master Plan Study.
38
Such investigation does not form part of the scope of this Master Plan Study.
39
Such investigation does not form part of the scope of this Master Plan Study.
37
2-23
40
As specified by NDIC.
Assumption made by Bechtel to meet NDICs stated intent and yield potentially feasible facilities.
42
Assumption made by Bechtel to meet NDICs stated intent and yield potentially feasible facilities.
43
Such investigation does not form part of the scope of this Master Plan Study.
41
2-24
Ore bodies that contain elevated levels of hazardous materials such as asbestos,
radioactive materials or mercury should not be used as a source of raw materials for the
Sainshand Cement Plant. The geological investigation of the ore body recommended in
Section 2.5.3 preceding should confirm that the source ore bodies do not contain hazardous
materials.
Air and water emissions from the Sainshand Cement Plant will conform to Mongolian law.
Flue gas desulphurization will not be provided for the Sainshand Cement Plant but fabric
filter will be provided to control both combustion and fugitive dust emissions.
2.5.6.
UTILITY REQUIREMENTS
Electric power and water requirements of the Sainshand Industrial Park are tabulated in
Section 2.5.3.
The Sainshand Cement Plant will require communication services including telephone and
broadband internet access.
Drainage will be provided within the Sainshand Cement Plant to direct normally expected
storm water runoff (including roof drains and parking lot runoff) to a storm water pond
located within the Cement Plant. Treated water from the sewage treatment plant will be
directed to process water makeup. Unusually large precipitation events will be channeled to
emergency overflow for discharge to the Sainshand Industrial Park storm drainage system.
2.6.
The Coal Gasification Plant produces synthesis gas, mainly hydrogen and carbon monoxide
with some methane, and medium pressure superheated steam available for use within the
Sainshand industrial complex. The DRI uses synthesis gas for the reduction of iron ore, and
synthesis gas can also be used as fuel gas for power production.
2.6.1.
Gasification
Potential gasification technology suppliers include:
ConocoPhillips, USA
General Electric, USA
Lurgi, South Africa
Krupp Uhde, Germany
SES, USA
Shell, Netherlands
This Study assumes that the SES technology will be incorporated. A process description
and other information on the SES Gasifier system is included in Reference 2.6.i. Several
factors led to this decision:
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
2-25
The SES technology tolerates the high ash content of thermal coal
It is very flexible with respect to feed stock quality, allowing coals from various
locations to be utilized.
Ash produced in the SES reactor is relatively coarse, has minimal dust, and can be
used as road base or ballast. Many of the other technologies produce some quantity
of fine ash that would pose a problem for disposal.
SES is currently active in the Inner Mongolia area of China.
If the Coal Gasification Plant should proceed as a project, Bechtel recommends that all the
above suppliers be further evaluated as potential suppliers to the project. Any other suitable
and potential suppliers should also be considered: Bechtel does not represent that the
above named suppliers are the only suitable and potential suppliers.
Acid Gas Removal
The synthesis gas produced in the coal gasification reaction contains undesirable acid
gasses, mainly carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrogen sulphide (H2S), that need to be removed
from the gas product. Several methods are available for the removal of acid gases from
hydrocarbon containing gas streams, primarily either chemical solvents or physical solvents.
Chemical solvents, predominantly aqueous solutions of ethanolamines (MEA, DEA, MDEA,
DGA, etc.), rely on chemical reactions to remove acid gas constituents from sour gas
streams. The regeneration of chemical solvents is accomplished by the application of heat
whereas regeneration of physical solvents can be achieved by reducing the pressure
without the addition of heat energy. The prevalent physical solvents are Dimethyl Ether of
Polyethylene Glycol (DEPG), licensed by UOP LLC and Methanol (MeOH), licensed by
Lurgi AG.
Chemical Solvents:
The choice of the type of amine will affect the required circulation rate of amine solution, the
energy consumption for the regeneration and the ability to selectively remove either H2S
alone or CO2 alone if desired. Each of the ethanolamines has unique envelopes of
pressure, temperature, and concentration of acid gas (H2S and CO2) and unique corrosion
tendencies. There are primary, secondary and tertiary amines that have special acid gas
selectivity and energy requirements. Hydrogen Sulfide removal in many cases requires
selective removal and use of tertiary amines, such as MDEA. Both H2S and CO2 are
corrosive to carbon steel and may require expensive metallurgy to ensure longevity of the
equipment.
Physical Solvents:
Selexol is a physical solvent, unlike amine based acid gas removal solvents that rely on a
chemical reaction with the acid gases. The Selexol solvent is a mixture of the Dimethyl
ethers of polyethylene glycol. Since no chemical reactions are involved, Selexol usually
requires less energy than the amine based processes. In the Selexol process, the
Selexol solvent dissolves (absorbs) the acid gases from the feed gas at relatively high
pressure, usually 300 to 2000 psia (2.07 to 13.8 MPa) and at moderately cold temperatures
(40 to -20 F). However, at feed gas pressures below about 300 psia (2.07 MPa), the
Selexol solvent capacity (in amount of acid gas absorbed per volume of solvent) is
reduced and the amine based processes or the Rectisol process will usually be superior.
The rich solvent containing the acid gases is then let down in pressure and/or steam
stripped to release and recover the acid gases. The Selexol process can operate
selectively to recover hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide as separate streams, so that the
hydrogen sulfide can be sent to either a Claus unit for conversion to elemental sulfur or to a
WSA Process unit for conversion to sulfuric acid while, at the same time, the carbon dioxide
can be sequestered or used for enhanced oil recovery.
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
2-26
PLANT CAPACITY
As the Coal Gasification Plant produces no products for export from the complex, the
capacity of the unit is dependent on the consumptions of the other plants. The proposed
configuration of the Sainshand Industrial Park requires four gasifier trains in operation, with
one additional train as spare/stand-by. Four gasifiers are required to satisfy the design
demand, and a spare is required to obtain the necessary reliability. The normal, average
coal consumption is 1.51 million tonnes per year.
The two major uses of the synthesis gas are (a) as DRI reducing gas, and (b) an additional
and back-up fuel source for power production in the event that the primary fuel source
(steam from the Coke Plant) fails. The majority of the steam for power production will be
produced by the Coke Plant, with some contribution from other process plants. In addition,
boilers fired by synthesis gas to produce the remaining steam will be needed to meet the
expected required power capacity. The power plants synthesis gas fired boilers will be
sized to provide sufficient steam to maintain full electrical power production capacity in the
case of three of the four Coke Plant oven batteries operating (one battery down). In this
case, full design production in four gasifier trains results in the industrial complex being 4
MW short of power. To avoid the increased capital cost of an additional gasifier train to
satisfy this upset case, it is assumed that this small, short-term power shortage will be
satisfied by importing the required additional power from the national power grid. The
capacity design case for the Coal Gasification Plant is thus four gasifier trains at full design
capacity. During normal Coke Plant operations, by running the Gasification Plant and the
Power Plant at design capacity, 55 MW of export power could be made available to the
national power grid. The table below shows the normal and design plant capacities.
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
2-27
139 tonnes/hour
139 tonnes/hour
25 tonnes/hour
52 tonnes/hour
189 tonnes/hour
216 tonnes/hour
Coal Consumption
190 tonnes/hour
218 tonnes/hour
Oxygen Consumption
142 tonnes/hour
163 tonnes/hour
3.5
4.0
The main feedstock for the Coal Gasification Plant is thermal coal. The basis for this study
is coal from Tavan Tolgoi44. A complete and thorough analysis of the Tavan Tolgoi coal was
not available for the study, but the information provided to date from NDIC or third parties
indicates that the Tavan Tolgoi mine is likely to contain and produce coals of a relatively
broad range of qualities and characteristics. The coal characteristics used in this study are
in the table below, and were derived from an analysis of coal from the Sharygol mine in
northern Mongolia for which more complete information was available, and that is assumed
to be compatible with the range of thermal coal from Tavan Tolgoi.
Carbon
Moisture Free
76.65
Moisture and
Ash Free
83.5
Hydrogen
4.67
5.51
6.00
Nitrogen
1.24
1.46
1.59
Sulfur
Oxygen
0.66
6.28
0.78
7.40
0.85
8.06
Ash
6.96
8.20
Moisture
15.19
8.37
6,571
1,277
7,748
Coal with characteristics of coal from the Shivee Ovoo mine near Choir was first simulated
in the SES gasifier simulation model as gasifier feed because of its geographic proximity to
Sainshand. However, the high moisture content of the Shivee Ovoo coal makes it an
impractical and uneconomic feed stock for the Sainshand gasifiers. Combustion of some of
the coal, and a significantly increased amount of oxygen, is required to drive off the water.
The Shivee Ovoo coal would require seven gasifier trains instead of four, and the air
separation plant would be approximately three times as large as the plant for Tavan
Tolgoi/Sharygol coal. When used as the feed in the SES gasifier model, the Sharyngol coal
produced more acceptable results; those that are used in this Report.
44
As specified by NDIC.
2-28
The synthesis gas produced by the Coal Gasification Plant will be consumed in the
Sainshand Industrial Park, and no export or marketing is included.
The synthesis gas production capacity is provided in 2.6.2, above. As calculated by the
SES gasifier simulation model, the synthesis gas has a heating value (HHV) of 21.4 MJ/kg,
and composition as follows:
Synthesis Gas Composition
Component
Carbon Monoxide
Carbon Dioxide
Hydrogen
Water
Methane
Nitrogen
Mole Percent
39.08
2.65
45.95
0.51
9.54
2.27
Sulfur in the coal is converted to sulfuric acid in the Coal Gasification Plant. With the study
basis coal feed, and at normal capacity, the Coal Gasification Plant will produce 30
thousand tonnes of sulfuric acid per year. It is envisioned that this sulfuric acid will be
marketed with the large quantity of sulfuric acid produced by the Copper Plant.
2.6.5.
The Coal Gasification Plant will produce ash as a waste product. In the SES gasifier
system, the ash is coarse and sand-like, with less than 1% residual carbon. Fines (small
particles of ash and unreacted coal that are entrained in the gas flow) are eliminated by
being collected and returned to the gasifier for additional carbon conversion, where the fines
are agglomerated into the coarser discharge ash. The ash is suitable for road base material
or fill.
With the study basis coal feed as described in 2.6.4 above, and at normal capacity, the SES
gasifier simulation model predicts that the Coal Gasification Plant will produce 115 thousand
tonnes of ash per year.
As the raw synthesis gas is cooled after leaving the gasifier reactor, water is condensed
from the gas stream. This water is treated in the Coal Gasification Plant to effluent quality,
and then transferred to the utility water systems for further treatment, recovery and reuse.
The SES gasifier simulation model predicts that 1.09 million tonnes per year of waste water
is generated.
2.6.6.
UTILITY REQUIREMENTS
The Coal Gasification Plant consumes 37 MW of electrical power, not including the colocated Air Separation Unit.
The plant requires 3.15 million tonnes per year of boiler feed water. Of the steam produced
in Gasification, some is consumed internally, and 1.55 million tonnes per year are exported
from the plant to be used in the Power Plant for steam generation. The export steam is 48
bar, 316C.
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
2-29
2.7.
POWER PLANT
The power plant produces electrical power from steam turbine driven generators45. The
majority of the power produced is derived from the heat recovery steam from the other
industrial park facilities. The remaining steam required for power production is derived from
synthesis gas fired boilers. The synthesis gas is produced by the coal gasification process.
The process steam comes from the Coke Plant, the Copper Smelter, and the Coal
Gasification Plant. The Power Plant also provides steam for use in the DRI/HBI Plant,
Copper Smelter, and for the building heating hot water system.
The Power Plant is sized to satisfy and balance the electrical power consumption, and the
steam production and/or consumption of the plants in the Sainshand Industrial park.
2.7.1.
PLANT CAPACITY
The Power Plant normal net output is 278 MW. The plant includes three turbine generator
sets of 148 MW (gross) each46. Two turbine generators are sufficient to meet the
requirements, but the plant would normally run with all three turbine generators at reduced
load, resulting in highly reliable power, even when and while one turbine generator is down
for maintenance.
The synthesis gas boilers are sized to supply sufficient steam to meet the power needs of
the Sainshand Industrial Park, both during normal operations and also with one of the four
Coke Plant oven batteries down and not in operation (design case below). In this case, full
design production in four gasifier trains results in the industrial complex being 4 MW short of
power. To avoid the increased capital cost of an additional gasifier train to satisfy this upset
case, it is assumed that this small, short-term power shortage will be satisfied by importing
the required additional power from the national power grid.
With the all coke oven batteries operational, Coal Gasification at maximum production, the
power boilers at capacity, and all turbine generator sets running, the Power Plant could
produce 333 MW, with 55 MW available for export to the national power grid (export power
case below).
Power Plant Capacity Cases
Normal
Design
Export Power
278 MW
310 MW
333 MW
2 x 139 or
3 x 93
2 x 155 or
3 x 104
3 x 111
4 of 4
3 of 4
4 of 4
25
52
52
222
0
420
(4)
420
55
45
46
Assumption made by Bechtel to meet NDICs stated intent and yield potentially feasible facilities.
Assumption made by Bechtel to meet NDICs stated intent and yield potentially feasible facilities.
2-30
Rate, tonnes/hour
Inputs
Coke Plant Steam (100 bar)
Copper Plant Steam (60 bar)
Copper Plant Steam (15 bar)
Gasifier Steam (48 bar)
Steam from Synthesis Gas Fueled Boilers (100 bar)
Outputs
DRI Plant Steam (15 bar)
Copper Plant Steam (5 bar)
Steam for Comfort Heating System (5 bar)
2.7.2.
717
60
11
195
194
156
11
154
The power plant includes the following major plant scope items:
Unitized synthesis gas fired forced draft boiler, subcritical, non-reheat, using low
NOx burner technology. The boiler and most all major equipment will be located
indoors in heated structures
Unitized steam turbine generator, extraction, condensing non-reheat type using one
low-pressure heater, a deaerator, and two high pressure heaters
Unitized air cooled heat exchanger to cool the auxiliary equipment using a closed
cooling water system
Common No. 2 fuel oil storage tank and truck unloading facility, used for startup fuel
and emergency firing. Total of 340,000 gallons stored, 1.5 days storage at boiler
MCR.
Common demineralized water treatment equipment (water source is the effluent from
the 1st stage RO included with the plant utilities) including reverse osmosis and
electrodeionization equipment
Common wastewater collection with transfer to utilities for treatment and reuse
Building heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems for the control
rooms and administration offices
Ventilation and heating for warehouse, maintenance areas, and other enclosed
areas
2-31
Common DCS
2.8.
2-32
2-33
64 TPA
Silver
IRON PELLETS
Iron Ore Pellets
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
3.63 MTPA
480 kTPA
91 kTPA
84 kTPA
HP Steam
MP Steam
LP Steam
23 kTPA
194 kTPA
Bentonite
Fuel Gas
160 kTPA
1.3 MTPA
Nitrogen
MP Steam
DIRECT
REDUCTION IRON
115 kTPA
44 kTPA
571 kTPA
47 MW
PLANT INFRASTRUCTURE
Gasifier Ash
Gypsum
Copper Slag
Electrical Power
50 kTPA
5 kTPA
1.1 MTPA
23 MW
Oxygen
Lime
Reducing Gas
Electrical Power
45 kTPA
4.5 MTPA
42 MW
Dolomite
Iron Ore
Electrical Power
Water
2.5 MTPA
330 kTPA
Oxygen
16 kTPA
Steel Slag
1.2 MTPA
1.3 MTPA
MP Steam
LP Steam
1.5 MTPA
1.5 MTPA
1.1 MTPA
115 kTPA
1.1 MTPA
Thermal Coal
Synthesis Gas
Oxygen
Ash
Waste Water
Thermal Coal
Coking Coal
Copper Conc.
Iron Ore
Limestone
Lime
Basalt
Bentonite
Gypsum
Clay
Dolomite
Silica
Steel Slag
1.6 MTPA
2.9 MTPA
1.0 MTPA
4.5 MTPA
1.3 MTPA
42 kTPA
250 kTPA
23 kTPA
50 kTPA
40 kTPA
45 kTPA
82 kTPA
16 kTPA
74 MW
160 kTPA
Nitrogen
Electrical Power
1.5 MTPA
37 MW
1.6 MTPA
Oxygen
Electrical Power
HP Steam
100 MW
202 kTPA
Waste Heat
Fuel Gas
7.8 MTPA
280 MW
Electrical Power
HP Steam
22 MW
Electrical Power
250 kTPA
40 kTPA
Clay
Basalt
50 kTPA
127 kTPA
Thermal Coal
Gypsum
1.3 MTPA
Limestone
Cement (I/II)
30 kTPA
Flow Legend
Red Rates
Design Basis
Black Rates
Calculated
Main flow
Secondary flow
Sulfuric Acid
100 MW
1.0 MTPA
09 Dec 2011
Community Heating
COAL
GASIFICATION
Iron (DRI)
COPPER SMELTER
870 kTPA
570 kTPA
Slag
82 kTPA
15 kTPA
1.0 MTPA
13 MW
Silica
Lime
Copper Conc.
Electrical Power
5.7 MTPA
44 kTPA
Gypsum (FGD)
HP Steam
22 kTPA
Lime
2.9 MTPA
POWER
10 TPA
925 kTPA
Gold
Sulfuric Acid
COKE OVEN
Coking Coal
CEMENT
AIR
SEPARATION
Raw Materials
12 MTPA
Waste Products
2-34
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
2-35
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
2-36
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
2-37
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
2-38
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
2-39
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
2-40
SAINSHANDINDUSTRIALPARKMASTERPLANSTUDY
MATERIALANDUTILITYCONSUMPTION
RAWMATERIALS
ThermalCoal
CokingCoal
CopperConcentrate
IronOre
Limestone
Lime
Silica
Gypsum
Bentonite
Dolomite
Basalt
SteelSlag
Clay
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
IronOre DirectReduction
Coal
Copper
Pelletizing
Iron
Gasification Smelter CokeOven Cement
3.5trains
1,523
127
2,900
1,000
4,459
1,310
5
15 22
82
50
23
45
250
16
40
PRODUCTS
DirectReductionIron
Copper
MetallurgicCoke
Cement
SulfuricAcid
Gold
Silver
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
TPA
TPA
(2,500)
(300)
(925)
(10)
(64)
(2,000)
(1,000)
(30)
(2,500)
(300)
(2,000)
(1,000)
(955)
(10)
(64)
INTERMEDIATEPRODUCTS
IronOrePellets
ReducingGas
Hydrogen
Nitrogen
Oxygen
AcidGas(asSulfur)
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
(4,500)
3,625
1,109
160
50
(1,109)
1
1,139
(9.7)
2
333
9.7
(163)
(1,522)
(875)
WASTEPRODUCTS
Ash
Gypsum(FGD)
Slag
WasteWater
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
(25)
(25)
(115)
(1,099)
(571)
(25)
(44)
(25)
(25)
(270)
(4,265)
5,759
(115)
(44)
(571)
UTILITIES
RawWater
BFW/Condensate
IndustrialWater
PotableWater
SanitarySewer
CokeHPSteam(535C100bar)
GasHPSteam(316C48bar)
CopperHPSteam(60bar)
MPSteam(15bar)
LPSteam(5bar)
ElectricalPower
FuelGas
FuelOil
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
MW
MW
kTPA
700
9.0
(7.2)
22.5
144
3,025
3.8
(3.0)
1,250
46.9
3,177
25
4.3
(3.4)
(1,563)
36.6
(301)
672
2,804
19.3
(15.5)
(478)
(91)
84
41.6
5.9
14
5,908
971
6.2
(5.0)
(5,736)
12.6
198
6.2
(5.0)
22.0
(8,526)
4,678
4.9
(3.9)
5,736
1,563
478
(1,159)
(1,316)
(278)
150
6.1
3.0
4.1
(3.3)
10
1.0
(0.8)
74
11,821
(7,760)
(1,097)
(1.4)
3.0
(5,506)
1.7
1,242
3.0
(1,231)
859
1,036
(1,194)
1,231
3.0
11,821
0.0
14
Unit
Power
SulfurUnit
Bulk
Handling
Air
Separation
Raw
Water
Waste
Water
Community
Facilities
Net
1,650
2,900
1,000
4,459
1,310
42
82
50
23
45
250
16
40
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
2-41
SAINSHANDINDUSTRIALPARKMASTERPLANSTUDY
MATERIALANDUTILITYCONSUMPTION1of4CokeOvenBatteriesDown,GasifierandBoilerSizingCase
RAWMATERIALS
ThermalCoal
CokingCoal
CopperConcentrate
IronOre
Limestone
Lime
Silica
Gypsum
Bentonite
Dolomite
Basalt
SteelSlag
Clay
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
IronOre DirectReduction
Coal
Copper
Pelletizing
Iron
Gasification Smelter CokeOven Cement
4.0trains
75%
1,741
127
2,175
1,000
4,459
1,310
5
15 17
82
50
23
45
250
16
40
PRODUCTS
DirectReductionIron
Copper
MetallurgicCoke
Cement
SulfuricAcid
Gold
Silver
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
TPA
TPA
(2,500)
(300)
(925)
(10)
(64)
(1,500)
(1,000)
(34)
(2,500)
(300)
(1,500)
(1,000)
(959)
(10)
(64)
INTERMEDIATEPRODUCTS
IronOrePellets
ReducingGas(21.4MJ/kg)
Hydrogen
Nitrogen
Oxygen
AcidGas(asSulfur)
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
(4,500)
3,625
1,109
160
50
(1,109)
1
1,302
(11.0)
2
333
11.0
(163)
(1,685)
(875)
WASTEPRODUCTS
Ash
Gypsum(FGD)
Slag
WasteWater
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
(25)
(25)
(130.8)
(1,252)
(571)
(25)
(33)
(25)
(25)
(284)
(4,335)
5,996
(131)
(33)
(571)
UTILITIES
RawWater
BFW/Condensate
IndustrialWater
PotableWater
SanitarySewer
CokeHPSteam(535C100bar)
GasHPSteam(316C48bar)
CopperHPSteam(60bar)
MPSteam(15bar)
LPSteam(5bar)
ElectricalPower
FuelGas(21.4MJ/kg)
FuelOil
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
MW
MW
kTPA
700
9.0
(7.2)
22.5
144
3,025
3.8
(3.0)
1,250
46.9
3,631
25
4.3
(3.4)
(1,787)
36.6
(462)
672
2,804
19.3
(15.5)
(478)
(91)
84
41.6
5.9
14
4,431
971
6.2
(5.0)
(4,302)
12.6
198
6.2
(5.0)
22.0
(7,502)
5,013
4.9
(3.9)
4,302
1,787
478
(1,159)
(1,316)
(282)
311
6.9
3.0
4.1
(3.3)
10
1.0
(0.8)
82
11,943
(7,760)
(1,097)
(1.4)
3.0
(5,506)
1.7
1,242
3.0
(1,231)
859
1,036
(1,194)
1,231
3.0
11,943
335
4.3
0.0
14
Unit
Power
SulfurUnit
Bulk
Handling
Air
Separation
Raw
Water
Waste
Water
Community
Facilities
Net
1,868
2,175
1,000
4,459
1,310
36
82
50
23
45
250
16
40
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
2-42
SainshandIndustrialPark:WaterBlockFlowforSIPandAlternateLocations
5
28%
67.5%
RawWater(RO)
72%
32.5%
21
12
PotableUse
15
22
6
103%
UWUsers
80%
WasteWater
Treatment
Sewerfrom
Existing
18
19
Demineralizer
99%
1%
20%
20
90%
10%
16
Stream
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Description
RawWaterFeed
RawWaterTreatmentProduct
PotableWater
DemineralizerFeed
DemineralizerReject
DemineralizedWater
Demin.WaterUsageLoss
BoilerBlowdownLoss
SteamProduced
ProcessSteamUseLoss
CondensatePolisherReject
CondensateReturn
PotableWaterUsageLoss
SanitarySewer
SanitarySewerfromExistingCommunity
SanitarySewerTreatmentLoss
SanitaryTreatmentProduct
RawWaterTreatmentROReject
ProcessWasteWater
WasteWaterTreatmentLoss
WasteWaterRecycle
UtilityWaterUsageLoss
PlantWashDownUsage
SIP
11,821
8,858
1,099
4,653
1,303
3,350
86
164
10,938
2,855
81
8,002
220
879
365
124
1,119
4,265
1,074
1,377
5,506
8,433
180
StmUsers
Condensers
17
FlowRate,kTPA
Darkhan
TT
6,179 1,156
4,889 841
20 8
3,800 320
1,064 90
2,736 230
40 86
2,656 5,761
2,656
58
5,703
4 2
16 7
2 1
15 6
2,354 405
899
676 121
2,706 484
3,700 946
75 50
50%
Condensate Filter
11
SanitarySewer
Treatment
100%
50%
13
14
23
20%
80%
3%
Boilers
10
OT
3,193
2,206
23
268
75
193
86
9
594
84
5
505
5
18
50litersperdayperperson(20,000)
2
16
1,062
228
914
2,779
50
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
2-43
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
2-44
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
2-45
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
2-46
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
2-47
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
2-48
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
2-49
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
2-50
3.
UTILITIES1
Except where stated otherwise, the design basis contained in this Section is based on data
and design bases provided by NDIC or on behalf of NDIC by other agencies of the
Government of Mongolia contacted by Bechtel at NDICs direction. Where specific data was
not so provided, Bechtel has developed further details from the data that was provided, and
made assumptions to develop the utility parameters. The objective of these assumptions is
to specify an industrial park that meets the overall intent, as conveyed to Bechtel, of NDIC
for the proposed facility. Except where stated otherwise, NDIC has previously approved
such developments and assumptions by approval of previous task reports (including any
changes directed by NDIC) submitted to NDIC as part of the scope of work of this Master
Plan Study.
This report describes the utility plants anticipated at the time of this Report pursuant to
design basis and assumptions outlined in the preceding paragraph. The number and type
and design of industrial plants and anticipated utilities may change as further analysis,
preliminary/ front end engineering, detailed design, further investigations and other
necessary data and services are performed which are not part of the scope of this Master
Plan Report but which are necessary before making any capital investment decisions.
In general, the utility plants described here should make the industrial complex as a whole
more feasible by combining facilities and eliminating the need for redundant utility plants in
each process unit.
A description of overall design basis and the design basis for utility systems follows.
General Considerations:
Operating Schedule: All facilities will be designed for continuous operation.
Process Cooling: Use of evaporative water will be minimized, with a target of complete
elimination. In Sainshand water is a scarce resource, and evaporative cooling would be an
unacceptably large consumer of water. Each megawatthour of heat transferred to the
water would require evaporation of 1.6 tonnes of water. Process cooling is provided by air
cooled heat exchangers and no requirement for evaporative cooling is anticipated.
Design Temperature: Based on historical metrological data provided by NDIC, Bechtel has
derived the following design temperature parameters. All facilities will be specified to meet
rated capacities at ambient air temperatures up to 35C. Plants will also operate
satisfactorily, with potentially some loss of capacity, at ambient temperature between 35C
and 50C.
Minimum design ambient air temperature is 39C.
3.1.
POWER DISTRIBUTION
The distribution of electrical power from the power plant to the other areas within the
industrial park is part of common facilities. Redundant 34 kV power circuits will be supplied
from a switch yard in the power plant to the main transformer primary side of each plant.
Dual, redundant electrical feeders will be direct buried underground with communication and
control cables located along side in concrete duct banks. Common facilities electrical
Except where specifically stated otherwise in this Report, the information contained in this Report was provided to Bechtel or
its affiliates by NDIC as the Client or third parties. In such instances, Bechtel and its affiliates have relied on the information
provided by the Client or third parties without seeking to separately confirm, verify, validate or otherwise examine the
information to determine its accuracy, completeness or feasibility.
3-1
3.2.
RAW WATER
The raw water treatment plant will receive water from a pipeline provided by others, and
produce industrial quality water for use in the industrial park, and the supply for other water
systems. The raw water flow to the plant is 11.8 million tonnes per year (MTPA).
The source of the raw water feed assumed for the study is the Bor Hoovor fossil water
deposit north of Sainshand, that has been reported in a 1988 study to have an available flow
of 487 liters per second, or 15 MTPA. This reserve and capacity have not been proven, and
a water study, including a test well, should be performed in the early stages of the planning
for the development of the industrial park2. An analysis of this water is not available, but
from data contained in Groundwater Assessment of the Southern Gobi Region, World
Bank, April 2010 (provided to Bechtel by NDIC), a conservative assumption for water quality
is: 3000 milligrams per liter total dissolved solids, including 950 milligrams per liter chloride.
Bechtel relies upon the accuracy of this World Bank assessment and has not sought to
verify the same.
This is not a part of the scope for this Master Plan Study.
3-2
Raw Water
1807
3000
7.6
RO Feed
1627
2996
7.2
RO Product
1220
86.7
5.9
125
30
856
25
1.0
0.9
225
755
950
20
7.96
125
30
856
25
1.0
0.2
207
769
950
20
22.7
0.877
0.210
28.4
1.03
0.007
0.001
12.5
6.58
32.2
4.63
22.7
497
119
3340
96.9
3.98
0.6
792
3060
3700
66.1
22.7
The reverse osmosis product water is split into three streams: utility water for general
industrial use, feed to the potable water treatment system, and feed to the boiler feed water
preparation system located in the Power Plant.
3.3.
POTABLE WATER
Water from the Raw Water Treatment for potable water is further treated by:
Cartridge filtration
Ultraviolet sterilizer
Limestone contactor
Sodium hypochlorite dosing
The potable water is then stored and is distributed throughout the industrial park for use in
the individual plants, as well as in the new community. No capacity has been included for
the existing city of Sainshand, as it is assumed that its potable water needs are currently
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
3-3
3.4.
Liters/day/person
114
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
INDUSTRIAL WATER
From the Raw Water Treatment discharge, the utility water stream is further treated with
limestone contactors to restore alkalinity and pH to the product water, eliminating the
potentially corrosive properties of desalinated water, and maintaining the quality targets for
total dissolved solids (TDS), pH, and Langelier saturation index (LSI). Water recovered from
the Waste Water Treatment Plant is combined with the RO product stream to create the
source for general industrial use. Storage, pumping, and distribution piping to each plant
fence line is for the industrial water is included in the common facilities. Piping internal to
individual plants is included in those plants.
Process use of utility water is summarized in the table below. This includes an allocation of
22.5 m3/hour (180 MTPA), spread to the plants, for plant wash-downs; which flow is
recovered in the waste water system for treatment and reuse. The remaining quantity of
water is consumed in the process plants and not returned for recovery and treatment.
These quantities do not include the water used for production of boiler feed water and
steam.
Utility Water Usage
Plant
Iron Ore Pellets Plant
DRI/HBI Plant
Copper Smelter
Coke Plant
Cement Plant
Coal Gasification
Common Facilities
Total
3-4
3.5.
A stream of water from the Raw Water Treatment Plant Boiler is further treated in a
demineralization plant to produce boiler feed water for steam production. The demineralizer
is located in the Power Plant plot, and includes an additional reverse osmosis package and
an electro-deionization step. Reject water from this treatment is returned to the raw water
treatment system and combined with the raw water feed for recovery. The demineralizer
has a processing capacity of 650 m3/hour feed, with design production of 470 m3/hour of
boiler feed water. The demineralizer includes a total of 6 trains to meet the total capacity, of
which one is an installed spare for redundancy. Of the steam produced from the boiler feed
water, some is lost in process plant uses, and the remainder is condensed and returned for
reuse after a filtration step mainly to remove any metal particles. An allowance has been
made for three percent of the boiler feed water rate to be lost in boiler blow down. Half of
this blow down amount is returned to water treating for recovery, and the other half is
assumed lost during flashing and handling.
3-5
3.6.
Normal (m3/hr)
84
739
397
199
1419
Design (m3/hr)
84
739
454
410
1687
FIRE PROTECTION
The fire water system will store and supply water for fire protection to each facility in the
industrial park. Industrial water will be received, stored, and distributed to fire suppression
equipment in each plant via pressurized underground firewater loop. The scope of the
common facilities will take water to each plant fence line; the process unit scope will include
all fire water piping and equipment within the process plant boundary.
3.7.
COOLING WATER
3.8.
A hot water circulation system is provided for comfort heating in buildings in the industrial
complex and the existing and new Sainshand communities. The existing central heating
system for Sainshand will be replaced and decommissioned. The capacity of the system is
set at 100 MW, based on the capacity of the old system of 40 MW. Hot water is supplied at
90C, with the return at 50C. The water is heated by heat exchange with low pressure
steam extracted from steam turbines in the Power Plant.
With the duty of 100 MW and differential temperature of 40C as stated above, the water
circulation rate is 2,150 m3/hour. An allowance has been made for the loss of 5% of the
circulating flow, or 107 m3/hour, due to leakage.
The central heating facility includes facilities for storage, pumping, and treatment of the
circulating water. Common facilities include distribution piping to the fence line of each
process plant and to the industrial park boundary for community heating.
3.9.
STEAM SYSTEMS
Common Facilities include interconnecting piping systems to transfer steam between the
various plants. As shown on the material balance, steam is produced in several of the
process plants and sent to the Power Plant to be utilized in power generation.
3.10.
FUEL GAS
Fuel gas used in the Sainshand Industrial Park is synthesis gas from the Coal Gasification
Plant. The synthesis gas has a heating value (HHV) of 21.4 MJ/kg, and composition as
follows:
3-6
Mole Percent
39.08
2.65
45.95
0.51
9.54
2.27
Much of the synthesis gas is consumed in the DRI Plant for reduction of iron ore to iron.
Fuel gas users are tabulated below:
Fuel Gas (Synthesis Gas) Consumption
Plant
DRI
Pelletizing Plant
Copper Smelter
Power (normal)
Power (design)
Total (normal)
Total (design)
Tonnes/hour
139
24
1.0
25
52
189
216
MW (HHV)
824
144
5.9
150
311
1125
1286
The design case above is maximum operation of the Coal Gasification Plant and the Power
Plant boilers to either replace the steam production of one of four Coke Plant oven batteries,
or to produce export power.
Common facilities include piping from the Coal Gasification Plant boundary and distribution
piping to the fence line of each process plant.
3.11.
FUEL OIL
Fuel oil is used in the Copper Smelter, and in the Power Plant as fuel for limited emergency
and startup power generation. Fuel oil will be received by truck in the Copper Smelter and
Power Plant, and storage and delivery of the fuel oil is included in the scopes of these two
plants. No common utility system is included for fuel oil.
The Copper Smelter is the only normal user of fuel oil, and consumes 14 thousand tonnes
per year.
3.12.
OXYGEN
An Air Separation Plant (ASU) is provided in the common facilities to produce oxygen and
nitrogen for use in the process plants. The Coal Gasification Plant is the major user of
oxygen, and the ASU is located in the Coal Gasification Plant to minimize oxygen piping.
3-7
Tonnes/hour
6.3
42
142
163
190
211
The design case above is maximum operation of the Coal Gasification Plant and the Power
Plant boilers to either replace the steam production of one of four Coke Plant oven batteries,
or to produce export power.
Air separation is accomplished by cryogenic separation driven by compression and autorefrigeration through pressure reduction. The ASU is a large consumer of power to drive the
compressors and air cooled heat exchangers. The ASU consumes 74 MW of power at
normal oxygen production rate, and 82 MW at design rate. The plant in this study users
electric motors to drive the compressors.
Consideration should be given during
development to use of steam turbine drivers. Turbines would be more energy efficient, but
have a higher capital cost and maintenance cost.
Common facilities include piping from the Coal Gasification Plant boundary and distribution
piping to the fence line of each process plant.
3.13.
NITROGEN
The Air Separation Plant will produce nitrogen as a byproduct to oxygen production. A
sufficient quantity of nitrogen will be compressed and distributed to process plants for both
quantified process use and non-quantified use where an inert gas is required.
Quantified Nitrogen Consumption
Plant
DRI
Copper Smelter
Coal Gasification
Total
Tonnes/hour
20
0.27
0.13
20
Common facilities include piping from the Coal Gasification Plant boundary and distribution
piping to the fence line of each process plant.
3.14.
Waste water from each of the industrial park process plants, the reject water from Raw
Water Treatment, and recovered water from the Sanitary Sewer Treatment Plant are further
treated in the common Waste Water Treatment Plant. Treated water is returned for use as
industrial water.
Quantified flows include recovered wash-down water, boiler blow downs, condensate filter
backwash from the Power Plant, the reject water from the Raw Water Treatment Plant,
recovered water from the Sanitary Sewer Plant, and recovered water condensed from the
Coal Gasification Plant.
3-8
Additionally, each plant will collect and impound any rain that falls, intermittent water flows,
and any oily water generated. Each process plant will include water treatment facilities as
required for its specific contaminants, and will discharge effluent quality water to the
common facilities.
3.15.
STORM WATER
Rainfall that falls on the industrial park (except that which falls into potentially contaminated
process areas), and any runoff that enters the park boundary will be collected in common
facilities. Any collected water will be tested, sent to the Water Treatment Plant if necessary,
and used to supplement the industrial water supply.
3.16.
Sanitary sewer streams will be collected from throughout the industrial park, and streams
from both the existing and new Sainshand communities will be sent to the Sainshand
Industrial Park for treatment. The existing Sainshand sewer treatment system will be
decommissioned. The allocation for sewer flow from the existing community is 20,000
persons at 50 liters per person per day. For the industrial park and the new community, the
capacity is based on 80% of the potable water flow being returned as sanitary sewer.
Sanitary Sewer Flows
Source
Existing Sainshand Community
New Sainshand Community
Industrial Park
Total
3.17.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Sainshand Industrial Park is a very large, remote project Greenfield site that is an ideal
candidate for broadband wireless solutions for telecommunications requirements. Data,
voice and other specialized services can all reside on the same 100% Internet Protocol (IP)
based network. The most critical aspect of this project is connectivity to the world wide fiber
network (big pipes). Initial connectivity at the site will need to be satellite based with the
bandwidth based on the number of users on site.
With a mobile phone penetration rate of 98%, the Mongolian mobile telecommunication
providers are obviously well developed, and it is assumed that they will be able and willing
to provide service and connectivity by increasing their existing coverage or installing new
facilities to accommodate our needs. The wireless carriers currently providing service in
Mongolia are:
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
3-9
MobiCom
SkyTel
Unitel
G-Mobile
Standard IP architecture with single mode fiber connecting all facilities on the main
project site and nearby facilities i.e. construction trailers & camps. Utilize point-topoint microwave to facilities where it is not economically feasible to run fiber. Run
multimode fiber inside all facilities where access points are installed for wireless
access to the network.
Dedicated Local Area Network (LAN) connectivity to be reserved for those locations
where data rates are considered excessive for wireless access points, for example engineering groups utilizing CAD applications. Also, it is used for those locations
where a dedicated line is required for safety, security or where the industrial
architecture does not allow for wireless connectivity.
Distances for fiber are based on ducts to be installed with the electrical service; fiber
is the medium for the backhaul of data & voice traffic.
Switches are based on the estimated number of end users. For the Sainshand
Industrial Park, for 5000 subscribers, the wireless system includes a GSM core
network, integrated HLR and SMSC, 2 BTSs. The EVDO solution includes the
packet data core network & 2 BTS.
3-10
4.
Except where stated otherwise, the design basis contained in this Section is based on data
and design bases provided by NDIC or on behalf of NDIC by other agencies of the
Government of Mongolia contacted by Bechtel at NDICs direction. Where specific data was
not so provided, Bechtel has developed further details from the data that was provided, and
made assumptions to develop the material handling and transportation systems parameters.
The objective of these assumptions is to specify an industrial park that meets the overall
intent, as conveyed to Bechtel, of NDIC for the proposed facility. Except where stated
otherwise, NDIC has previously approved such developments and assumptions by approval
of previous task reports (including any changes directed by NDIC) submitted to NDIC as
part of the scope of work of this Master Plan Study.
This report describes the material handling and transportation systems anticipated at the
time of this Report pursuant to design basis and assumptions outlined in the preceding
paragraph. These parameters may change along with other aspects of the SIP as further
analysis, preliminary/ front end engineering, detailed design, further investigations and other
necessary data and services are performed which are not part of the scope of this Master
Plan Report but which are necessary before making any capital investment decisions.
4.1.
RAIL SYSTEM
4.1.1.
Currently, rail facilities in Sainshand consist of the Mainline from Altainbulag to Zamin-Uud
that runs north to south from the Russian border to the Chinese border and a spur off this
line that runs west to the oil fields at Zuunbayaan. There is an existing passenger terminal
off the Mainline from Altainbulag to Zamin-Uud in Sainshand and an industrial rail yard for
off-loading commercial goods and coal for the Sainshand heating plant.
The Mainline from Altainbulag to Zamin-Uud predominantly carries freight to and from Ulan
Bataar from the interchange terminal of Erenhot (Erlian) in China, south of Zamin Uud. Both
the Mainline from Altainbulag to Zamin-Uud and the Zuunbayan spur are built using Russian
wide gauge track (1,520 mm) carrying predominantly Russian rolling stock pulled by
Russian diesel locomotives. Both lines are essentially single track with passing sidings at
regular intervals along the railroad corridor.
Shipments of goods into and out of China require trans-shipment to Chinese standard
Rolling Stock at Erenhot, south of the border (Zamin Uud). Currently, freight shipments are
unloaded from Mongolian railcars and reloaded on Chinese railcars. Bulk shipment of
copper concentrate from Oyu Tolgoi is now shipped by trucks in two ton supersacks to both
facilitate transloading at the border and to reduce the loss of product during transportation
on Chinese rolling stock. Once the industrial park is operating, the copper concentrate
would go by gondola railcars from Oyu Tolgoi to the smelter in Sainshand. Mongolian rolling
stock can make border crossings into Russia without transloading.
The scope of the master planning services for rail transportation consists of the rail
infrastructure within the limits of the Sainshand Industrial Park from the mainline junction,
including the mainline turnouts. The major elements of infrastructure include track, special
trackwork, wayside signaling, bridges, fueling facilities, sanding facilities, on-track inspection
1
Except where specifically stated otherwise in this Report, the information contained in this Report was provided to Bechtel or
its affiliates by NDIC as the Client or third parties. In such instances, Bechtel and its affiliates have relied on the information
provided by the Client or third parties without seeking to separately confirm, verify, validate or otherwise examine the
information to determine its accuracy, completeness or feasibility.
4-1
4-2
Mining Sites
Mineral
Tavan Tolgoi
Nariin Sukhait
Coal
125,000
Baganuur
Brown coal
600,000
Shivee Ovoo
Brown coal
646
6,420,000
4-3
Mining Sites
Mineral
Mardai
Uranium
925
Dornod
Uranium
16,467
Gurvan Bulag
Uranium
10,560
Tomortei
Iron Ore
230,000
Tsagaan Suvraga
Copper
10,640
Molybdenum
240,000
Erdenet
Copper
1,200,000
Burenhaan
Phosphorite
Boroo
Gold
25
Tomortein Ovoo
Lead
7,690
192,000
Asgat
Silver
Source: Boston Consulting Group, December 2009
6,400
4.1.3.
RAIL STANDARDS
4-4
4-5
Recommend Standard
100 kph
50 kph
1,520 mm
Max allowable axle load = 25
tonnes
4.6 m sidings and yards
Comments
Infrastructure design, not operations.
No. 20
No. 10
850 m 1,200 m
AREMA
AREMA
(existing on the Mainline from Altainbulag
to Zamin-Uud )
Russian gauge
Russian Axle load limit
AREMA
4-6
Recommend Standard
Comments
90 m (Main Line)
45 m (Yards, Sidings and Back
Tracks)
136 lb/yard (AREMA)
68 kg/m (UIC)
Prestressed concrete with
resilient fasteners
7 m minimum
7.6 m minimum
Ballast rock
Arterials and collectors
All other Public Roads
Grade Separated
Crossing at Grade
4.1.4.
Clearance Envelope
AAR Plate F
Table 4-2. Sainshand Railroad Design Basis Elements
4-7
MTPA
Density
Angle of
Storage
kg/m3
Repose (deg)
Volume (m3)
Solid Bulk
Height
Length
2 Months
0.127
1.801
2.900
1.000
4.459
1.310
0.042
0.082
0.050
0.023
0.045
830
830
770
2250
2590
1440
960
1200
1200
1123
1200
35
35
30
40
35
40
40
40
35
40
40
25,502
361,647
627,706
74,074
286,937
151,620
7,292
11,389
6,944
3,413
6,250
65
70
70
70
70
70
40
47
42
31
38
22.9
24.5
20.2
29.4
24.5
29.4
17.0
19.7
14.8
13.2
16.1
65
455
921
105
368
181
40
47
42
31
38
Basalt
Steel Slag
Clay
0.250
0.016
0.040
1280
3000
1122
40
45
40
32,552
889
5,942
67
19
38
28.0
9.5
15.9
67
19
38
Total
12.145
1,602,157
2418
Copper anodes would be stored at the copper smelter site and loaded there on flat cars.
Sulfuric acid is also produced at the copper smelter and would be stored in special tanks.
Acid would be shipped in special tank cars which would be loaded on site.
All the liquid bulk would be stored in tank farms on the premises of the copper smelter and
loaded in tank cars via pipelines, manifolds and loading arms, on their own siding.
4.1.4.2. RAIL MOVEMENTS VOLUME
The number of trains needed to supply Sainshand, based on the balance of materials data
(which is itself based on information supplied by or on behalf of NDIC and relied upon by
Bechtel), is summarized in Table 4-5. These are the movements in the loaded direction.
The same number of trains would move in the opposite direction when returning empty. A
total of 12.24 million tonnes per year (MTPA) of mostly solid bulk material is moved in unit
trains to Sainshand. On the new east-west line from Oyu Tolgoi (copper) and Tavan Tolgoi
(coal) 80-car trains would be dispatched. On the existing north-south line from Darkhan
(iron ore) 60-car trains would be dispatched.
MTPA
Products Loaded
Density
kg/m
Angle of
Repose (deg)
Storage
Width
Height
Length
520,833
66,288
143,678
70
70
70
20.2
24.5
24.5
770
111
201
Volume (m )
2 Months
Metallurgical Coke
Iron Ore Pellets
Iron (HBI)
2.000
0.875
2.500
640
2200
2900
30
35
35
Cement
1.000
1507
110,595
Copper Anodes
Sulfuric Acid
0.300
0.892
8800
1728
5,682
43,017
0.097
962
16,805
Train movements translate into 63 trains per week or nine trains per day, based on
10 months of operation per year. Two months of interruption are assumed due to extreme
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
4-8
Mode
MTPA
Carload
Train
Train/truck
MT
(cars)
per year
Solid Bulk
Train /Trucks
Mo
Tu
We
Th
Fr
Sa Su
per week
for 10 months
Rail
Rail
Rail
Rail
Rail
Rail
Truck
Truck
Truck
Truck
Truck
0.127
1.801
2.900
1.000
4.459
1.310
0.042
0.082
0.050
0.023
0.045
75
75
75
75
75
75
30
30
30
30
30
80
80
80
80
60
40
1
1
1
1
1
21
300
483
167
991
437
1,400
2,733
1,667
767
1,500
8
12
4
23
11
33
64
39
18
35
1
2
1
3
2
5
11
6
3
6
Basalt
Steel Slag
Clay
Truck
Truck
Truck
0.250
0.016
0.040
30
30
30
1
1
1
8,333
533
1,333
193
13
31
32
2
6
Boxcars, containers
Rail
0.650
35
80
232
1
1
4
2
5
11
7
3
6
1
2
1
3
1
5
11
6
3
6
32
2
5
33
2
5
1
2
3
2
6
11
7
3
5
2
1
1
4
1
6
10
6
3
6
3
2
6
10
7
3
6
32
2
5
32
3
5
32
2
5
1
2
1
2
1
3
1
12.247
2,631
63
Total Truck
0.548
18,267
426
71
71
71
71
71
71
Outbound train movements are shown in Table 4-6. From the copper smelter, one train of
sulfuric acid leaves each day as well as two trains a week of copper anodes in containers
loaded on flatcars. From the cement plant, half the production is distributed locally by truck
and the other half goes north on two trains a week. Lastly, it is assumed that five trains of
general freight would arrive each week and their cars would be delivered by a switch
locomotive to each factorys industrial siding as needed.
Products Loaded
Mode
MTPA
Carload
Train
Train/truck
MT
(cars)
per year
Train /Trucks
Mo
Tu
We
Th
Fr
Sa Su
per week
for 10 months
Rail
Rail
Rail
2.000
0.875
2.500
75
75
75
60
60
60
444
194
556
Cement (50% )
Rail
0.500
75
60
111
Cement (50% )
Copper Anodes
Sulfuric Acid
Truck
Rail
Rail
0.500
0.300
0.892
25
75
60
1
60
60
20,000
67
248
0.097
30
3,233
11
5
13
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
462
2
6
77
1
1
77
77
77
75
12
13
12
13
2
1
1
77
1
77
1
12
13
7.067
1620
40
Total Truck
0.597
23233
537
89
90
89
90
89
90
4.1.5.
4-9
4-10
4-11
4-13
4-14
4-15
The rotary dumper is recommended for operations at Sainshand because it performs more
reliably through extremes of temperature and it offers a better control of the dust problem.
Also, its operating performance is more predictable in cold climates where frozen loads are
expected than using bottom-dump hopper cars. An 80 car train could be unloaded in 1.5 to
two hours through a rotary dumper.
Bucketwheel Stacker/Reclaimers: A traveling slewing stacker serves stockpiles to the
left and right of the stockpile yard conveyor. Controlled remotely, it can build a stockpile in
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
4-16
Under the track there is a set of load cells which measures accurately the weight of the car
and stops the flow of material to ensure that the proper load has been reached and that the
maximum axle load is not exceeded. The loading space under the tower is also equipped
with a dust control system.
Conveyor Belts: The main stockyard belts are high capacity 1.5 m wide belts that can
handle some 4000 to 5000 tonnes per hour at five m/s. The belt has a trough in the middle
third and the sides are inclined at a 300 angle. This matches the capacity of a twin-car
rotary dumper, processing two cars (150 tonne load) every two minutes.
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
4-17
4-18
4.2.
HIGHWAYS
4.2.1.
Ground access is an integral part of the plan for the new industrial site. The ground access
system would consist of roadways, interchanges, and intersections, gates, parking and
loading/unloading facilities. The system would provide access from the existing road
network to site lots and would include necessary circulation lanes. The system must be
safe, efficient, convenient for use, and designed for optimum cost. To meet these
objectives, the ground transportation system would provide:
Clarity of path to minimise driver decisions, simplify signage, and minimise driver
confusion and error
Proper geometry suitable for the adopted roadway design speeds (for safety), and
for an aesthetically pleasing design of the transportation system that is compatible
with other facilities and systems
Optimal initial construction cost through the use of existing highways and staged
construction
Flexibility for future development options by establishing and retaining clear rights-ofway to accommodate increases in capacity, providing expansion for transit services,
and providing for a complete system within the project.
4.2.2.
Some of the streets in Sainshand are paved, especially from the rail station through the
recently developed part of town, where brick and block buildings are typical. In the
residential area, there are mostly enclosed plots with one or more gers, and unpaved
streets.
Intercity highways towards Ulaan Baatar, Zamin Uud, and Zuunbaayan are simple desert
trails with no pavement. They are basically construction and haul roads that follow the
railroad tracks.
4.2.3.
HIGHWAY STANDARDS
As design standards specific to Mongolia were not made available, for planning purposes,
roadway design criteria have been based on the American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials standards (Reference 4.2.i). The general criteria include
functional classification, design vehicle considerations, traffic characteristics and level of
service (LOS).
4.2.3.1. GENERAL CRITERIA
Functional Classification
The hierarchy of the functional system consists of principal arterials, collectors, and local
roads and streets.
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
4-19
Principal Arterial System: The urban principal arterial system serves the major
centers of activity of an urbanized area, the highest traffic volume corridors, and the
longest trip desires and carries a high proportion of the total urban area travel.
Arterials are expected to provide a high degree of mobility for the longer trip length.
Therefore, they should provide a high operating speed and level of service.
Collector System:
Collector routes are routes on which travel distances
predominately are shorter than on arterial routes. The collector road system
provides land access service and traffic circulation within residential neighborhoods,
commercial and industrial areas. Collectors serve a dual function in accommodating
the shorter trip and enhance mobility. They should provide some degree of mobility
and also serves abutting property. Thus, an intermediate design speed and level of
service is appropriate.
Local roads and street system: The local street system constitutes all roads not
classified as principal arterials, or collector roads. It primarily permits direct access
to abutting lands and connections to the higher order systems. It offers the lowest
level of mobility. Local roads and streets have relatively short trip lengths, and
because property access is their main function, there is little need for mobility or high
operating speeds. This function is reflected by use of a lower design speed and
level of service.
Design Vehicles
Highway geometry must be based around the physical characteristics and proportions of the
vehicles using the highway. Four general classes of design vehicles have been established:
(1) passenger cars, (2) buses, (3) trucks, and (4) recreational vehicles. The design vehicle
for industrial roads, turning paths and turning lane width shall be determined from truck turn
templates for the proposed design vehicle WB 50 (AASHTO).
Traffic Characteristics
The Peak Hour Factor is the accepted unit for expressing flow rate in a one-hour
period. It is customary to design highways with a sufficient number of lanes and with
features that will enable highways to accommodate the forecasted DHV (Design
Hourly Volume) for the design year. The peak hour factor (PHF) is used to convert
the rate of flow during the highest 15-minute period to the total hourly volume.
The design hourly volume (DHV) is the traffic volume for the peak hour of the
average day of the peak month.
The design traffic volumes shall be based on design year traffic as determined.
The level of service, shown in Table 4-7, characterizes the operating conditions of
the facility in terms of traffic performance measures related to speed and travel time,
freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, and comfort and convenience. The level
of service ranges from level-of-service A (least congested) to level-of-service F
(forced or breakdown flow).
4-20
Free flow
Stable flow
Unstable flow
The proposed level of service (LOS) for Sainshand for initial development is B and for
limited peak times LOS D is acceptable.
The functional classification of the roadway system, the design vehicle, the traffic
characteristics and the LOS provides the context in which the roadway design criteria
elements are to be applied.
Typical Geometric Cross Sections
Geometric cross sections showing components for typical roadways are illustrated In
Figure 4-15, below.
4.2.3.2. DETAILED DESIGN CRITERIA
After the functional classification, design vehicle, traffic characteristics and desired level of
Service (LOS) are established then the specific detailed design criteria for roadway design
can be applied. Specific design criteria include but are not limited to the following:
Stopping Sight
Distance shall be in accordance with AASHTO policy. See Table 4-8 below for Stopping
Sight Distances.
4-21
Design Speed
(km/h)
Brake Reaction
Distance (m)
Braking Distance
On Level (m)
Calculated (m)
Design (m)
20
13.9
4.6
18.5
20
30
20.9
10.3
31.2
35
40
27.8
18.4
46.2
50
50
34.8
28.7
63.5
65
60
41.7
41.3
83.0
85
70
48.7
56.2
104.9
105
80
55.6
73.4
129.0
130
90
62.6
92.9
155.5
160
100
69.5
114.7
184.2
185
110
76.5
138.8
215.3
220
120
83.4
165.2
248.6
250
130
90.4
193.8
284.2
285
4-22
Design Speed
(km/h)
Calculated
Design
20
20
0.6
30
35
1.9
40
50
3.8
50
65
6.4
60
85
11.0
11
70
105
16.8
17
80
130
25.7
26
90
160
38.9
39
100
185
52.0
52
110
220
73.6
74
120
250
95.0
95
130
285
123.4
124
Table 4-9. Design Controls for Stopping Sight Distance and Crest Vertical Curves
*Rate of vertical curvature, K, is the length of curve percent algebraic difference in intersection grades (A).
K=L/A
Design Speed
(km/h)
Calculated
Design
20
20
2.1
30
35
5.1
40
50
8.5
50
65
12.2
13
60
85
17.3
18
70
105
22.6
23
80
130
29.4
30
90
160
37.6
38
100
185
44.6
45
110
220
54.4
55
120
250
62.8
63
130
285
72.7
Table 4-10. Design Controls for Sag Vertical Curves
73
*Rate of vertical curvature, K is the length of curve (m) per cent algebraic difference intersecting grades (A),
K=L/A
4-23
Minimum Radius
K/h (m/h)
Of Curve m (ft)
32 (20)
40 (130)
48 (30)
92 (300)
65 (40)
168 (550)
80 (50)
260 (850)
97 (60)
350 (1,150)
112 (70)
640 (2,100)
128 (80)
1190 (3,900)
Table 4-11. Standards for Curve Radius
Maximum Grade: The maximum grade for the roadways shall be six percent.
Standard Lane Width: The standard lane width for all roads is 3.65 m.
Minimum Curve Radius: The minimum curve radius for right turns in intersections is
15 m.
Vertical Clearance for Railroad Structures: The minimum vertical clearance for
railroad structures shall be 7.0 m (23) feet for non-electrified rail systems.
Pavement Surface Type: The selection of pavement type is determined based on the
traffic volume and composition, soil characteristics, weather, performance of
pavements in the area, availability of materials, energy conservation, initial cost, and
the overall annual maintenance and service-life cost. The structural design of
pavements is addressed in the AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures
(Reference 4.2.iii).
4.2.4.
4-24
Codes
Cement Plant
CMP
Iron Pellets
IRP
DRI Plant
DRI
Coke Plant
CKP
Power Plant
PWP
Gasification
GAS
Copper Smelter
CPS
Copper Refinery
CPR
S. Mongolian Railway
SMR
Each zone has one or more interfaces to the network, called the connector. It is generally
the gate or entrance to the zone. The traffic inside the zone is not represented, but is
assumed to follow the connector to the point of origin or destination of the trip (centroid). In
Figure 4-16, the codes of the zones are placed where the access road (connector) to the
gate or entrance intersect the nearest road segment.
Trips Generated by the Plant Personnel
For each plant, an estimate for the number of employees was developed, using information
provided by technology providers of the individual plants, and Bechtels industrial experience
data base for plant areas not specifically covered by technology providers. Table 4-13
below summarizes the estimated number of employees for all of the plants. It is assumed
that the plants would operate around the clock and every day of the year (24/7 365) and
would run several shifts in addition to the day shift to make continuous operation possible.
The day shift is likely to have the largest number of employees and will generate the
highest traffic volume.
Within each shift the estimated number of employees is broken down into the type of
employees required for operations, maintenance, engineering, administration and security.
Furthermore, they are classified in one of three categories: Blue collar, Professional, or
Management employees. This in turn will determine their expected mode of transportation
and time of travel.
4-25
GAS
4-26
Day
Shift
Operational Shifts
(3 shifts)
Total
Employees
Administrative
Process
Engineering
Operations
227
1,337
1,564
318
318
Administrative
101
101
Process
38
38
Engineering
28
28
Operations
51
51
Maintenance
64
64
TOTAL
509
1,655
2,164
Plant Personnel
Category
Shift Staff
Maintenance
Day Staff
67%
341
1109
1450
Professionals (P)
22%
112
364
476
Management (M)
11%
56
182
238
TOTAL
509
1655
Table 4-13. Summary of Plant Personnel by Shift and by Category
2164
In addition to the number of employees working for each plant, there are a number of other
personnel that will be engaged in administration, services, operations and maintenance of
the common areas of the site, including the rail classification yard and maintenance
facilities. Table 4-14 summarizes these non-plant personnel and categorizes them in the
same way to determine their mode of transport and time of commute. They are assumed to
be equal to 20% of the employees of the site.
Day visitors to the site will add a small percentage of traffic to the total number generated by
daytime employees on site. As shown in Table 4-15, it is estimated that the number of daily
visitors will be about 10% of the total day shift employees (plant and non-plant).
20%
Day
Shift
Operational
Shifts (3 shifts)
Total
Employees
67%
68
222
290
Professionals (P)
22%
22
73
95
Management (M)
11%
11
36
48
Day Visitors
Percent of Total Day Shift Employees
10%
Table 4-15. Estimate of Day Visitors
433
Day
Total
61
61
4-27
Truck
per year
Truck
per week
Truck
per/day
Cement Plant
31867
738
123
Iron Pellets
2267
53
DRI Plant
168
Coke Plant
728
17
Copper Smelter
3237
76
13
TOTAL
148
Modal
Split
Average
Occupancy
Modal
Split
Average
Occupancy
Managers
100%
1.2
0%
20
Professionals
100%
1.5
0%
40
0%
3.0
100%
40
Blue Collars
Visitors
100%
1.5
0%
20
Table 4-17. Employees/Visitors Movements Modal Split and Occupancies
4-28
4-29
GAS
Figure 4-17. Desire Lines Morning Peak Hour Personnel Vehicles (PCU)
4-30
GAS
4-31
GAS
4-32
GAS
Figure 4-20. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes of Trucks (PCU/hr each way)
4-33
Standard
Level of service
3.65 m
3.65 m
B or C*
9m
14 m
23 m
Lane volume
Arterial and collector roads
Design speeds
Arterial and Collector roads
100 km/hr
40 km/hr
50 m
40 km/hr
100 km/hr
200 m
40 km/hr
40 km/hr
150 m
3%
100 km/hr
400 m
4%
Ramps
6%
5.5 m
2.2 m
600* m
480* m
4-34
4-35
SITE DEVELOPMENT1
5.
Except where stated otherwise, the design basis contained in this Section is based on data
and design bases provided by NDIC or on behalf of NDIC by other agencies of the
Government of Mongolia contacted by Bechtel at NDICs direction. Where specific data was
not so provided, Bechtel has developed further details from the data that was provided, and
made assumptions to develop the Site development parameters. The objective of these
assumptions is to specify an industrial park that meets the overall intent, as conveyed to
Bechtel, of NDIC for the proposed facility. Except where stated otherwise, NDIC has
previously approved such developments and assumptions by approval of previous task
reports (including any changes directed by NDIC) submitted to NDIC as part of the scope of
work of this Master Plan Study.
This report describes the Site development parameters anticipated at the time of this Report
pursuant to design basis and assumptions outlined in the preceding paragraph. These
parameters may change along with other aspects of the SIP as further analysis, (including
site conditions), preliminary/ front end engineering, detailed design, further investigations
and other necessary data and services are performed which are not part of the scope of this
Master Plan Report but which are necessary before making any capital investment
decisions.
5.1.
INTRODUCTION
Site Development is a crucial early works activity for the new industrial site at Sainshand
Industrial Park. Site Development includes the early preparation activities of clearing and
grubbing, cut and fill works for grading the pad site, rail yard, road and rail networks,
material handling facility areas, installation of drainage elements and stormwater detention
ponds. The objectives of the site development task are to provide a baseline infrastructure
platform from which to construct follow on works including the development of the industries,
facilities, and transportation at-grade as well as above grade infrastructure. To meet these
objectives, the system would provide:
Elevated and level pad site of sufficient surface area to handle follow on
development activities identified herein, including near term and mid-term identified
industrial development goals.
Level material handling area of sufficient size to handle activities identified herein,
including unit train rail operations, storage, loading and unloading of raw materials
and product.
Rail yard site of sufficient size to handle required trackwork, facilities, rolling stock for
a fully functional and operational yard site.
The ability to meet the American Association for State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) design criteria, Chapters 3 and 4, Elements of Design and Cross
Except where specifically stated otherwise in this Report, the information contained in this Report was provided to Bechtel or
its affiliates by NDIC as the Client or third parties. In such instances, Bechtel and its affiliates have relied on the information
provided by the Client or third parties without seeking to separately confirm, verify, validate or otherwise examine the
information to determine its accuracy, completeness or feasibility.
5-1
Off-site by-pass routing of adjacent watershed stormwater to convey the 100 year
storm event1 without risk of site inundation, or damage to proposed rail and roadway
infrastructure.
Adequate, low maintenance site erosion and sediment controls to prevent damage to
all site developed road and rail infrastructure.
Adequate, low maintenance water quality measures for site surface water runoff.
5.2.
EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY
Topography for the Sainshand Industrial Project site was extracted from Google Earth Pro
Computer Software, Version 6.1.0.4857, Build Date 10/01/2011. Data extracted through
Google Earth Pro is SRTM 90 m point data originally co-produced by USGS and NASA.
Stated accuracy of this data in the vertical datum is limited to plus/minus 16 m. Bechtel has
relied upon this data for the topographical content of this section 5
The proposed Sainshand Industrial Complex site sits in what is essentially an undeveloped
basin immediately to the south of the Town of Sainshand, Mongolia. The region lies in the
eastern Gobi desert steppe region. The area is very arid with reported average yearly
rainfall of approximately 110 mm (Table 5-3). Granulated well-draining sandy soils are
prevalent, and the area is considered lightly vegetated with patchy grasses and short
shrubs. A ridge line of hills border the site to the north and south. The site lies at the
bottom of a dry lake basin, approximate elevation 892 m and roughly 20-30 kilometers
square, which drains the nearly 450 square kilometer watershed to the proposed site from
all directions (including the town of Sainshand). Evidence in publically available imagery
suggests that the basin fills with up to several meters of water during major, yet historically
infrequent storm events. Elevation differential between the basin and nearby hills of the
watershed perimeter is approximately 150 m, suggesting gently sloping terrain (+/- 1%
gradient) with localized small ridges, hills and dunes. To the south of the basin appears to
be a naturally occurring spillway at approximate elevation 897 m, should the basin fill to
such levels. Refer to Figure 5-2 for additional details of the existing site.
Reliable records do not exist prior to 1976. Assumption based on recorded single maximum event in 1976 (See Reference
5.4.i).
5-2
5-3
5-4
5.3.
GRADING
5.3.1.
The Sainshand Industrial Park grading concept consists of several individual parts including
the individual plant areas, Material handling and Storage area, Rail Yard, Stormwater
Detention Ponds, and Off-Site re-grading.
For the core SIP areas, including the plants areas and material handling and storage, the
site was graded as a level pad to accommodate the build out of the planned industry. As rail
service is being provided to select industries, it was determined that a level pad would best
meet the requirements for industrial siding track geometry. The level pad approach also
allows for future expansion of rail sidings without major site works. The site was graded to
an elevation, 898.64 m which appears to best suit the objective of balancing cuts and fills,
allow for installation of the drainage infrastructure on modest gradients, while also elevating
the southern and western areas of the site in order to minimize flood risk from the naturally
occurring drainage basin. The Eastern most portion of the site within the industrialized area,
which is elevated slightly above the prepared site was not graded since no identified plants
require the use of this space in the currently proposed plan.
The material handling and storage area is also a level pad serviced by unit train operations
in a double loop configuration. The area is located immediately adjacent to, and south of,
the industrial park zone. In order to facilitate site integration with roadway infrastructure and
conveyor operations, the material handling area was placed at the same elevation as the
SIP industrial plants.
The Stormwater Detention Ponds were designed to maximize the available remaining space
on the western end of the site. Natural topography dictated the logical placement of these
facilities in the area of the low point of the drainage basin in order to minimize required
excavation. Pond 1 (northwesterly) is the main collection pond placed at elevation 893 m.
All stormwater conveyed from the developed site, as well as naturally occurring watersheds
to the North and Northwest discharge directly into Pond 1. Pond 2 (southwesterly) is
considered the overflow pond, graded at elevation 892 m. In addition to site overflows from
Pond 1, Pond 2 also collects discharge from the natural watersheds to the West and South.
The Rail yard pad site concept is designed to meet AREMA standards for trackwork
geometry. Rail yard trackwork longitudinal grade are required to be essentially flat, and so
the Rail yard pad site mimics this criteria. Due to the site topographical constraints from the
existing mainline rail route (Sainshand-Zuunbayan) elevations, entrance and exit grades, the
rail yard site was elevated to 912 m, necessitating over 16 million cubic meters of fill
material. Elevating the Rail Yard also provides the additional benefit of alleviating flood risk
from offsite stormwater flows.
The offsite area re-grading sits immediately East of the designated SIP parcel. It is a large
area encompassing approximately three square kilometers at the base of the eastern
primary watershed. The concept entails re-grading this area and development of a
boundary berm area to re-channelize the offsite stormwater runoff into a diversion culvert for
conveyance through and beyond the site boundaries to a southerly discharge point.
Figure 5-3 identifies the proposed cuts and fills areas for the SIP site:
5-5
Figure 5-3. Estimated Cut and Fill Areas for Proposed Sainshand Industrial Park Site Concept
5-6
Earthwork:
Cut
CM
30,458,330
4,905,663
13,886,608
Fill
CM
41,636,300
Imported Fill*
CM
Imported Fill
Required
Rail Yard
Off-Site Area
Pond 2
Unit
Pond 1
ITEM
AREA
TOTAL
128,990
50,360,078
2,228,492 16,816,145
60,680,942
980,487
10,320,864
10,320,864
-
Table 5-1. Estimated Cut and Fill Quantities for Sainshand Industrial Park Site
The site is not completely balanced primarily due to the large fill required at the Rail Yard.
However, it is assumed that all imported fill would be excavated from local sources
surrounding the parcel and hauled no further than 8 km distant.
5.4.
DRAINAGE
5-7
The proposed SIP site would be graded higher than the basin elevation to alleviate flood risk
and allow for a collection system to be installed at the required gradients. The offsite flows
from the main eastern watershed (approximately 200 sq km) will be collected and by-passed
through the site in a large underground box culvert (3,600 mm x 3,600 mm) installed
adjacent to the material storage facility and rail loop. The discharge point for the by-passed
flow would be located at a point south of the SIP site where natural elevations are
significantly lower than SIP. The town of Sainshand proper lies within the limits of the SIP
basin watershed, and it is assumed that the discharge flows from the town of Sainshand
eventually are received in the basin area, and as such are included in the Stormwater pond
sizing calculation. Development of the rail yard cuts through the natural drainage patterns
for the watershed areas to the North and West and the SIP access road and railway loop
track cuts through the watershed area to the South. The offsite flows from those areas are
conveyed directly to SIP detention pond areas through a series of box culverts installed
under the SIP infrastructure (roadways, rail yard, etc.).
The Detention Ponds are volumetrically sized to handle the flows generated from the
developed and undeveloped SIP as well at the off-site discharges from the North, West and
South. Detention Pond 1 is elevated one meter higher than Detention Pond 2 to allow for an
overflow scheme should Pond 1 detained volume reach the elevation of the installed
spillway. Pond 2 would also be tied into the bypass box culvert to the south to allow
overflow to exit out of the detention area and discharge to the south.
Stormwater received on site at SIP would be collected in area drains installed at the various
pad sites and channeled through underground piping to a network of reinforced concrete
storm sewer pipes and eventually routed to a main collection channel. The main collection
channel would be located adjacent to the main highway running East-West through the site.
The main collection channel would be an unlined trapezoidal section 2.5 m deep and 35 m
wide, installed at a shallow slope, and designed to handle peak 100 year storm flows from
the entire SIP site. The network would be sized to handle the fill development of the heavy
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
5-8
Comments
Assumption based on
recorded single maximum
event in 1976, AIACC Working
paper No.13 Observed
Climate Change in Mongolia,
June 2005 (Reference 5.4.ii)
Natural Resources
Conservation Method
Time of Concentration
NCRS Equations
Natural Resources
Conservation Method,
Maximum value of 10 hours,
watershed is subdivided
Bare Soil
Type II
C = 0.6
Pipe Sizing
Channel Sizing
Mannings Equation
5-9
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year
-11.8 -6.7 3.0 14.1 22.5 27.5 29.4 27.5 20.8 12.0 -0.6 -9.8 10.66
Daily mean C
-18.1 -13.7
-4.2
5.9
14.5
20.4 22.7
20.9
13.6
4.4
-7.0 -15.6
3.65
Average low C
-1.1
7.2
13.6 16.8
15.0
7.5
-1.4
-12.3 -20.4
-2.36
3.1
8.1
16.1 31.0
30.9
10.9
4.6
Precipitation mm
0.5
1.1
1.5
2.1
1.4
111.3
[3]
5-10
Table 5-4 correlates with the above graphic, highlighting the estimated travel times for runoff
to reach the discharge points for the catchment areas as well as overall travel time to the
basin area. This information was utilized in determining the peak low rate at the bypass box
culvert as well volumetric flows into the stormwater detention areas.
5-11
t2 = L/(60V)
Calculations
Flow Velocity,
Length 2
Slope 2
Flow Velocity,
Length 3
Slope 3
Flow Velocity,
Total Length
m/m
m/s
L, m
m/m
m/s
L, m
m/m
m/s
Ltot, m
m/m
HR
HR
HR
HR
V=
Slope 1
L, m
V=
Length 1
km 2
V=
Watershed Size
Watershed ID
S=
Inputs
EAST WATERSHED
39.95
EN1
"Mini" Watershed 1
3000
2100
2400
1600
0.017
0.027
0.025
0.033
5400
2000
7100
2500
2300
0.019
0.027
0.016
0.026
0.019
0.69
0.81
0.63
0.79
0.68
3400
3400
13300
4400
4700
0.002
0.002
0.004
0.004
0.017
0.22
0.22
0.31
0.31
0.65
2700
7500
0.032
0.019
0.88
0.68
9800
1900
0.004
0.006
0.30
0.39
8900
0.015
0.59
1200
0.006
0.38
1700
2800
2600
850
450
3530
8400
400
0.022
0.025
0.024
0.047
0.091
0.019
0.014
0.088
0.74
0.78
0.76
1.07
1.48
0.68
0.59
1.45
10600
0.006
0.38
4070
0.008
0.45
2000
5000
0.019
0.016
0.67
0.63
4070
0.008
0.45
0.00
3300
0.022
0.73
1000
0.011 0.52
WM1
WS1
WS2b
WS3
WS5
WN1
WN3
1500
2600
2000
500
1500
1270
900
0.044
0.025
0.057
0.102
0.049
0.035
0.047
1.03
0.78
1.17
1.57
1.08
0.92
1.06
4500
4100
5170
3000
1580
4800
2000
0.011
0.010
0.008
0.014
0.034
0.005
0.013
0.52
0.48
0.44
0.59
0.90
0.36
0.55
8500
8500
5950
5950
3760
0.006
0.006
0.005
0.005
0.004
0.38
0.37
0.33
0.33
0.32
2950
5500
0.014
0.008
0.59
0.43
WN3a
4000
0.019
0.68
11500
0.007
0.40
2560
2500
750
3250
2860
0.046
0.045
0.041
0.018
0.016
1.06
1.04
1.00
0.66
0.63
3000
3000
4600
0.010
0.013
0.011
0.48
0.55
0.51
1500
1500
0.003
0.003
0.28
0.28
1700
0.003
0.27
1500
0.003
0.28
ES1
ES2
EN2
0.64
0.81
0.77
0.90
1000
3900
4700
3100
0.004
0.007
0.003
0.003
61.68
ES3
EN3
ES4
EN4
ES5
ES6
ES7-12
EN6-8
ES13
22900
22900
18700
18700
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.27
0.27
0.28
0.28
26900
28900
25800
23400
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
1.3
0.7
0.9
0.5
0.9
2.7
4.9
3.1
23.7
23.7
18.6
18.6
25.9
27.2
24.4
22.2
14500
14500
0.004 0.30
0.004 0.30
0.004 0.30
0.004 0.30
0.007
0.006
0.008
0.007
0.010
2.2
0.7
3.1
0.9
0.9
4.2
4.2
11.9
4.0
2.0
13.4
13.4
9800
9800
23300
19900
20400
16700
16800
9.0
9.0
19.8
18.3
15.0
13.9
12.0
12500
15900
0.010
0.011
0.9
3.1
, flo
1.4
6.5
0.9
10.9
10100
0.014
4.2
0.9
16370
2800
2600
6920
5450
3530
8400
4700
0.008
0.025
0.024
0.016
0.022
0.019
0.014
0.025
0.6
1.0
1.0
0.2
0.1
1.4
4.0
0.1
7.8
2.5
0.8
2.2
2.5
1.3
0.5
14500
15200
13120
9450
6840
6070
5850
5500
15500
0.011
0.010
0.014
0.013
0.021
0.012
0.019
0.008
0.010
0.4
0.9
0.5
0.1
0.4
0.4
0.2
2.4
2.4
3.3
1.4
0.5
3.7
1.0
6.3
6.4
5.0
5.0
3.3
1.6
7.9
7060
7000
5350
3250
6060
0.022
0.022
0.015
0.018
0.009
0.7
0.7
0.2
1.4
1.3
1.7
1.5
2.5
1.5
1.5
1.8
1.5
"Mini" Watershed 2
101.55
EN5
0.31
0.40
0.27
0.28
"Mini" Watershed 3
6500
0.003 0.28
NORTH WATERSHED
62.9
NM
N1
N2
NW1
NW2
NE1
NE2
NE3
10.9
1.0
1.0
3.6
2.3
1.4
4.0
1.9
WEST WATERSHED
106.17
1.4
3.6
9.1
9.7
8.7
6.5
4.1
4.1
2.6
3.6
9.6
SOUTH WATERSHED
21.19
S4
S5
S1
S2
S4a
3.9
3.6
2.7
1.4
4.5
Table 5-4. Approximate Time of Concentration Values for Sainshand Watershed Catchments
5-12
Subdivision or Locality:
Calculated By:
Date:
Revised By:
Date:
12/2/2011
Checked By:
Pipe Material:
"n" Factor:
0.012 RCP
RCP
RCP
Required
Overland
Upstream
Total
Flow
Pipe Flow
Flow
Inc.
Equiv.
Total
Pipe
Pipe
Pipe
Flow
Pipe
Area
Area
Area
Tc
Qi
Slope
Dia.
Area
Length
Time
Cap.
m3/s
m3/s
m/m
in
ft2
m/s
min.
m3/s
1.31
3200
41.00
98.28
Location
From
To
HA
HA
HA
min
mm/hr
m3/s
SIP-TZ
P-3
POND
1170.00
0.60
702.00
702.00
120.0
50.00
97.50
97.50
0.00020
SIP-1
P-5
P-6
4.25
0.60
2.55
2.55
10.0
50.00
0.35
0.35
0.01000
24
2.37
100
0.70
0.69
SIP-2
HW
P-1
6.75
0.60
4.05
4.05
10.0
50.00
0.56
0.56
0.02200
30
4.09
100
0.41
1.87
SIP-3
P-1
P-2
30.00
0.60
18.00
18.00
12.0
50.00
2.50
2.50
0.00037
72
28
0.95
1000
17.48
2.51
SIP-4
P-2
P-3
30.00
0.60
18.00
18.00
28.0
50.00
2.50
2.50
5.00
0.00065
84
38
1.40
1000
11.89
5.01
SIP-5
P-3
P-4
30.00
0.60
18.00
18.00
44.0
50.00
2.50
5.00
7.50
0.00040
108
64
1.30
1000
12.81
7.69
SIP-6
P-6
P-7
60.00
0.60
36.00
36.00
12.0
50.00
5.00
5.00
0.00065
84
38
1.40
1000
11.89
5.01
SIP-7
P-7
P-8
60.00
0.60
36.00
36.00
28.0
50.00
5.00
5.00
10.00
0.00070
108
64
1.72
1000
9.68
10.18
SIP-8
P-8
P-9
60.00
0.60
36.00
36.00
44.0
50.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
0.00053
**
132
95
1.71
1000
9.73
15.13
*Note: Pipe Size is an equiavlent RCP Circular Pipe Size - Actual Pipe is RCP ARCH Pipe 88"R x 138"S
**Note: Pipe Size is an equiavlent RCP Circular Pipe Size - Actual Pipe is RCP ARCH Pipe 106"R x 168"S
***Note: Unlined Trapezoidal Channel with 3:1 side slopes and Manning's Roughness "n" = 0.025
Table 5.5. Approximate Representative Pipe Sizings for Sainshand Industrial Park Drainage Concept
5-13
Figure 5-7. Approximate Representative Pipe Layout for Sainshand Industrial Park Drainage Concept
5-14
6.
ALTERNATE SITES1
Except where stated otherwise, the design basis contained in this Section is based on data
and design bases provided by NDIC or on behalf of NDIC by other agencies of the
Government of Mongolia contacted by Bechtel at NDICs direction. Where specific data was
not so provided, Bechtel has developed further details from the data that was provided, and
made assumptions to develop the potential alternative sites parameters. Except where
stated otherwise, NDIC has previously approved such developments and assumptions by
approval of previous task reports (including any changes directed by NDIC) submitted to
NDIC as part of the scope of work of this Master Plan Study.
This Report describes the potential alternative sites looked at by Bechtel as anticipated at
the time of this Report pursuant to design basis and assumptions outlined in the preceding
paragraph. These parameters may change along with other aspects of the SIP as further
analysis (including site conditions), preliminary/ front end engineering, detailed design,
further investigations and other necessary data and services are performed which are not
part of the scope of this Master Plan Report but which are necessary before making any
capital investment decisions.
Part of the Sainshand Industrial Park Master Plan Study is a differential economic analysis
of locating selected plants at other sites within Mongolia closer or adjacent to the major raw
material source for such plant. This analysis does not examine the entire industrial
complex, but rather the effect on each selected plant of locating that plant at an alternate
location instead of in the Sainshand Industrial Park. The selected plants and the alternate
locations are:
The Iron Ore Pellets Plant and DRI/HBI Plant located near Darkhan, adjacent to an
existing iron based industrial area. The major proven reserves of iron ore are in
northern Mongolia near Darkhan.
The Copper Smelter located adjacent to the Oyu Tolgoi mine where the copper ore
is mined.
The Coke Plant located adjacent to the Tavan Tolgoi mine where the metallurgical
coal is mined.
The plant facilities at each of locations are summarized in the Alternate Locations Block
Diagram, the Material and Utility Consumption tables.
6.1.
The Darkhan alternate site would include Iron Ore Pelletizing Plant, DRI/HBI Plant, and
facilities necessary to support the iron based plants, including Coal Gasification to supply
reducing gas for DRI, power generation using synthesis gas as fuel, Air Separation Plant to
support Coal Gasification, and other utilities as required.
6.1.1.
The Iron Ore Pelletizing Plant and the DRI/HBI Plant as described in sections 2.3 and 2.4
are also applicable for the alternate Darkhan site without modification.
Except where specifically stated otherwise in this Report, the information contained in this Report was provided to Bechtel or
its affiliates by NDIC as the Client or third parties. In such instances, Bechtel and its affiliates have relied on the information
provided by the Client or third parties without seeking to separately confirm, verify, validate or otherwise examine the
information to determine its accuracy, completeness or feasibility.
6-1
The Coal Gasification Plant would be as described in section 2.6, but would utilize Coal from
the Sharyngol mine, and would have a smaller capacity due to no power being generated
from synthesis gas.
Darkhan Location Coal Gasification Plant Capacity
Darkhan
Sainshand
139 tonnes/hour
139 tonnes/hour
25 tonnes/hour
163 tonnes/hour
189 tonnes/hour
Coal Consumption
164 tonnes/hour
190 tonnes/hour
Oxygen Consumption
123 tonnes/hour
142 tonnes/hour
99,000 tonnes/year
115,000 tonnes/year
2.74 MTPA
3.15 MTPA
Steam Export
1.35 MTPA
1.55 MTPA
Waste Water
924 kTPA
1.09 MTPA
3.0
3.5
Ash
POWER PLANT
No power is generated at the Darkhan site; the plant imports 175 MW from the grid. The
power is to be available from planned future projects.
6.1.4.
Common facilities and utilities as described in section 3 are included with capacities as
required to support the Darkhan iron ore processing facility, with the following exceptions:
Rail and material handling facilities are provided as needed to handle the needs of
the plants. No rail maintenance facility is included.
Sanitary sewer treatment, without the load from a local community, is a small
package system
6-2
Liters/day/person
190
190
190
190
Industrial Water
Darkhan Location Utility Water Usage
Plant
Iron Ore Pellets Plant
DRI/HBI Plant
Coal Gasification
Common Facilities
Total
Tonnes/hour
139
24
MW (HHV)
824
144
163
968
Total
Oxygen
Tonnes/hour
6.3
123
129
Nitrogen
Darkhan Location Quantified Nitrogen Consumption
Plant
DRI
Coal Gasification
Total
Tonnes/hour
20
0.13
20
6-3
Total
423
Sewage Treatment
Average flow to the sanitary sewer is 2.0 m3/hour.
Telecommunications
Switches are based on the estimated number of end users. For the Darkhan Alternate Site,
for 2000 subscribers, the wireless system includes a GSM core network, integrated HLR
and SMSC, 2 BTSs. The EVDO solution includes the packet data core network & 2 BTS.
The number of TXRs is reduced from those in Sainshand.
6.2.
The Oyu Tolgoi alternate site would include the Copper Smelter Plant and facilities
necessary for support, including a Power Plant, Air Separation Plant, and other utilities as
required.
6.2.1.
COPPER SMELTER
POWER PLANT
The Power Plant would be a turbine generator set to convert the Copper Smelter export
steam to electrical power. This would produce 15 MW of the 64 MW required for operation
of the facility. The balance of 49 MW would be imported from the power grid in the area. It
is expected that a power generation plant will be installed near Oyu Tolgoi to supply power
requirements for the mine and supporting facilities. This potential power plant is not a
subject or consideration of this Report.
6.2.3.
Common facilities and utilities as described in section 3 are included with capacities as
required to support the Oyu Tolgoi copper concentrate processing facility, with the following
exceptions:
Copper concentrate is received by conveyor directly from the mine and ore
concentrator facility. Rail is included to transport products and supply other raw
materials as needed. No rail car dumping and management facilities are included.
No rail maintenance facility is included.
Fuel gas will either be obtained from the Oyu Tolgoi mine facilities, or the fuel gas
users in the Copper Smelter will be eliminated by converting to fuel oil or other
available heat source.
6-4
Sanitary sewer treatment, without the load from a local community, is a small
package system
Sewage Treatment
Average flow to the sanitary sewer is 2.3 m3/hour.
Telecommunications
Switches are based on the estimated number of end users. For the Oyu Tolgoi Alternate
Site, for 1500 subscribers, the wireless system includes a GSM core network, integrated
HLR and SMSC, 2 BTSs. The EVDO solution includes the packet data core network & 2
BTS. The number of TXRs is reduced from those in Sainshand.
6.3.
The Tavan Tolgoi alternate site would include the Coke Plant and facilities necessary for
support, including a Power Plant and other utilities as required.
6.3.1.
COKE PLANT
POWER PLANT
The Power Plant would be a turbine generator set to convert the Coke Plant export steam to
electrical power. This would produce 212 MW (at 35C ambient temperature) of electrical
power, with 17 MW consumed in the facility and 195 MW exported to the power grid in the
area.
6-5
Common facilities and utilities as described in section 3 are included with capacities as
required to support the Tavan Tolgoi coke production facility, with the following exceptions:
Coal is received by conveyor directly from the mine, and coke product is returned to
the mine for loading onto rail cars in the mines rail car loading facility. No rail or rail
maintenance facility is included.
Sanitary sewer treatment, without the load from a local community, is a small
package system
Sewage Treatment
Average flow to the sanitary sewer is 1.0 m3/hour.
Telecommunications
Switches are based on the estimated number of end users. For the Tavan Tolgoi Alternate
Site, for 500 subscribers, the wireless system includes a GSM core network, integrated HLR
and SMSC, 1 BTS. The EVDO solution includes the packet data core network & 1 BTS.
The number of TXRs is reduced from those in Sainshand.
6.4.
Three alternate sites have been developed at a conceptual level to enable a comparative
analysis to the baseline Sainshand Industrial Park. Quantities derived for the civil works
estimate are based on the following modifications to plant, rail operations, and community
assumptions:
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
6-6
All plant sizes shall remain similar in size and capacity at the alternate locations
The Copper Smelter is relocated from SIP to the mine site at Oyu Tolgoi
The Coking Plant is relocated from SIP to the mine site at Tavan Tolgoi
The Iron Ore Pelletizing and the DRI/HBI plant are relocated from SIP to the
industrial area near Darkhan
The Rail yard facility should remain at Sainshand to service the Industrial build-out at the
three sites, although it is assumed that some locomotive and rolling stock servicing would be
done locally in Darkhan utilizing the existing rail yard there. In addition, a smaller car
servicing facility with rail sidings would be located at Oyu Tolgoi capable of handling minor
repairs to rolling stock.
Site civil earthworks quantities for the three-sites analysis are calculated directly using
Inroads surface modeling software, locating a level pad site of the appropriate size and
elevation to balance cut/fill as nearly as possible.
Drainage infrastructure and stormwater detention facilities are estimated using a factoring
technique based on perceived local terrain and existing infrastructure, combined with
relative sizing of the alternate sites in direct comparison to the Sainshand Industrial
Complex on a square meter basis. Highways are similarly estimated on a kilometer length
basis, summarized from an estimate of highway access to site and access required on-site.
6-7
Figure 6-1. Site Locations of Sainshand Industrial Park (SIP) & Alternative Processing Plants
6-8
6-9
6.5.
The following are included here (water block diagram is included in Section 2):
Overall Block Diagram for each alternate location
Material and Utility Consumption for Darkhan alternate
Material and Utility Consumption for Oyu Tolgoi alternate
Material and Utility Consumption for Tavan Tolgoi alternate
Location and Site Plan for Darkhan alternate
Location and Site Plan for Oyu Tolgoi alternate
Location and Site Plan for Tavan Tolgoi alternate
6-10
IRON PELLETS
194 kTPA
23 kTPA
1.3 MTPA
160 kTPA
50 kTPA
5 kTPA
1.1 MTPA
23 MW
6.2 MTPA
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
Electrical Power
Thermal Coal
Iron Ore
Lime
Bentonite
Dolomite
Electrical Power
Nitrogen
Oxygen
Electrical Power
Waste Water
Raw Materials
Gold
10 TPA
Silver
64 TPA
180 MW
DIRECT
REDUCTION IRON
COPPER
SMELTER
925 kTPA
AIR SEP.
1.3 MTPA
4.5 MTPA
5 kTPA
23 kTPA
45 kTPA
50 MW
160 kTPA
1.0 MTPA
37 MW
920 kTPA
Copper Conc.
1.0 MTPA
175 MW
Waste Products
Lime
15 kTPA
Silica
82 kTPA
Slag
570 kTPA
Raw Water
1.2 MTPA
Coking Coal
2.9 MTPA
Lime
22 kTPA
Gypsum (FGD)
44 kTPA
Red Rates
Black Rates
Design Basis
Calculated
8.3 kTPA
14 Dec 2011
Main flow
Secondary flow
POWER
ISLAND
Sulfur
Electrical Power
1.3 MTPA
99 kTPA
980 kTPA
1.3 MTPA
1.3 MTPA
MP Steam
Ash
Oxygen
Synthesis Gas
Thermal Coal
Sulfuric Acid
POWER
ISLAND
Electrical Power
99 kTPA
47 MW
Water
Gasifier Ash
Electrical Power
MP Steam
Nitrogen
Oxygen
Lime
Reducing Gas
Electrical Power
Fuel Gas
Bentonite
45 kTPA
4.5 MTPA
AIR
SEPARATION
COKE OVEN
Iron (DRI)
870 kTPA
Dolomite
Iron Ore
COAL
GASIFICATION
Raw Water
3.2 MTPA
49 MW
6-11
SAINSHANDINDUSTRIALPARKMASTERPLANSTUDY
MATERIALANDUTILITYCONSUMPTIONDARKHANALTERNATELOCATION
RAWMATERIALS
ThermalCoal
IronOre
Lime
Silica
Bentonite
Dolomite
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
IronOre DirectReduction
Coal
Pelletizing
Iron
Gasification
3.0trains
1,312
4,459
5
23
45
PRODUCTS
DirectReductionIron
Sulfur
kTPA
kTPA
(2,500)
(8.3)
(2,500)
(8.3)
INTERMEDIATEPRODUCTS
IronOrePellets
ReducingGas
Nitrogen
Oxygen
AcidGas(asSulfur)
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
(4,500)
3,625
1,109
160
50
(1,109)
1
981
(8.3)
8.3
(161)
(1,031)
(875)
WASTEPRODUCTS
Ash
Gypsum(FGD)
Slag
WasteWater
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
(25)
(25)
(99)
(924)
(40)
(2,354)
3,368
(99)
UTILITIES
RawWater
kTPA
BFW/Condensate
kTPA
IndustrialWater
kTPA
PotableWater
kTPA
kTPA
SanitarySewer
GasHPSteam(316C48bar kTPA
MPSteam(15bar)
kTPA
ElectricalPower
MW
FuelGas
MW
FuelOil
kTPA
700
9.0
(7.2)
22.5
144
3,025
3.8
(3.0)
1,250
46.9
2,736
25
4.3
(3.4)
(1,346)
36.6
(144)
(2,736)
3,825
3.0
0.7
(0.6)
10
1.0
(0.8)
50
6,179
(4,869)
(19)
(0.6)
3.0
(2,706)
0.7
16
3.0
6,179
(0.0)
(96.3)
175.0
Unit
Demin
Water
Sulfur
Unit
Bulk
Handling
Air
Separation
Raw
Water
1,312
4,459
5
23
45
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
Waste
Water
Net
6-12
SAINSHANDINDUSTRIALPARKMASTERPLANSTUDY
MATERIALANDUTILITYCONSUMPTIONOYUTOLGOIALTERNATELOCATION
Unit
Copper
Smelter
RAWMATERIALS
CopperConcentrate
Lime
Silica
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
1,000
15
82
1,000
15
82
PRODUCTS
Copper
SulfuricAcid
Gold
Silver
kTPA
kTPA
TPA
TPA
(300)
(925)
(10)
(64)
(300)
(925)
(10)
(64)
INTERMEDIATEPRODUCTS
Nitrogen
Oxygen
kTPA
kTPA
2
333
(2)
(333)
WASTEPRODUCTS
Slag
WasteWater
kTPA
kTPA
(571)
(25) (39)
(1,062) 1,126
(571)
UTILITIES
RawWater
BFW/Condensate
IndustrialWater
PotableWater
SanitarySewer
CopperHPSteam(60bar)
MPSteam(15bar)
LPSteam(5bar)
ElectricalPower
FuelGas
FuelOil
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
MW
MW
kTPA
670
2,804
19.3
(15.5)
(478)
(91)
84
41.6
5.9
14
0.3
(0.3)
18
3,193
(2,183)
(22)
(0.3)
1.0
3,193
(0.0)
48.6
5.9
14
Power
(670)
293
0.8
(0.7)
478
91
(84)
(15)
Bulk
Handling
Air
Separation
Raw
Water
1.4
(1.1)
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
Waste
Water
(914)
0.3
18
1.0
Net
6-13
SAINSHANDINDUSTRIALPARKMASTERPLANSTUDY
MATERIALANDUTILITYCONSUMPTIONTAVANTOLGOIALTERNATELOCATION
Unit
Coke
Oven
RAWMATERIALS
ThermalCoal
CokingCoal
Lime
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
2,900
22
2,900
22
PRODUCTS
MetallurgicCoke
kTPA
(2,000)
(2,000)
WASTEPRODUCTS
Ash
Gypsum(FGD)
Slag
WasteWater
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
(44)
(25)
(169)
(405)
599
(44)
UTILITIES
RawWater
BFW/Condensate
IndustrialWater
PotableWater
SanitarySewer
CokeHPSteam(535C100bar)
ElectricalPower
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
MW
5,908
971
6.2
(5.0)
(5,736)
12.6
(5,908)
345
0.8
(0.7)
5,736
(200)
0.7
(0.6)
2
1,156
(832)
(8)
(0.3)
1.0
(484)
0.3
6
1.0
1,156
(0.0)
(183)
Power
Bulk
Handling
Raw
Water
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
Waste
Water
Net
6-14
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
6-15
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
6-16
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
6-17
7.
COMMUNITY FACILITIES1
Except where stated otherwise, the design basis contained in this Section is based on data
and design bases provided by NDIC or on behalf of NDIC by other agencies of the
Government of Mongolia contacted by Bechtel at NDICs direction. Where specific data was
not so provided, Bechtel has developed further details from the data that was provided, and
made assumptions to develop the potential community facilities requirement parameters.
The objective of these assumptions is to specify an industrial park that meets the overall
intent, as conveyed to Bechtel, of NDIC for the proposed facility. Except where stated
otherwise, NDIC has previously approved such developments and assumptions by approval
of previous task reports (including any changes directed by NDIC) submitted to NDIC as
part of the scope of work of this Master Plan Study.
This report describes the community facilities estimated and anticipated at the time of this
Report pursuant to design basis and assumptions outlined in the preceding paragraph.
These parameters may change along with other aspects of the SIP as further analysis and
further investigations including environmental assessments and other necessary data is
compiled or developed and other services are performed which are not part of the scope of
this Master Plan Report but which are necessary before making any capital investment
decisions.
7.1.
INTRODUCTION
Sainshand is the capital of Dornogobi Province (East Gobi) and is located about 200 km
north of the Chinese border. The city includes government administration buildings,
commercial areas, apartments and private houses. The city also includes many private
walled lots with ger homes located within them. The city of Sainshand has an estimated
population of about 20,000 and is split into three sections.
The oldest section is called Ar Shand and is located in the northern part of town. This is
also the location of the train station. A kilometer south is the location of the citys main
stores, restaurants, hotels, banks, and government offices. Another kilometer to the south is
the district known as Denj. Denj is adjacent to the hospital and some of the more modern
housing developments are located here.
7.1.1. PROJECT VICINITY
The area surrounding Sainshand and the SIP includes gentle sloping terrain with a number
of steep ridge areas. There are also two coal-fired power plants, one of which is
abandoned. An area to the northwest of Sainshand includes the remnants of a large
abandoned Soviet military complex. The Sainshand Airport is located 14 kilometers to the
north and, as mentioned above, there is a train station serving Sainshand that links to
Ulaanbaatar.
7.1.2. CLIMATE
This area of the East Gobi province is the driest in Mongolia. The average annual
precipitation is 111 mm. The primary source of water for Sainshand is from wells. The daily
mean temperature fluctuates from minus 18.1 degrees C in January to plus 22.7 degrees C
in July.
1
Except where specifically stated otherwise in this Report, the information contained in this Report was provided to Bechtel or
its affiliates by NDIC as the Client or third parties. In such instances, Bechtel and its affiliates have relied on the information
provided by the Client or third parties without seeking to separately confirm, verify, validate or otherwise examine the
information to determine its accuracy, completeness or feasibility.
7-1
7.2.
POPULATION
A population assessment has been developed based on estimated employment figures for
each of the industrial plants. The total employment is projected to be about 2,700
employees plus families and this translates into a total estimated direct population of about
10,500 people.
However, the SIP will stimulate population growth much greater than the direct population
numbers and this indirect growth has been roughly estimated by the World Bank* to equal
the total for direct employees plus family members, giving a total estimated community
population of about 21,000. These projections are shown below in Table 7-1, using the
following assumptions:
Average Mongolian Household Size: 4.12
Percentage of Mongolian Employees:
90%
Percentage of Mongolian Employees with families: 100%
Percentage of Expatriate Employees:
10%
Percentage of Expatriate Employees with families: 0%
Influx population ratio: 1.0*
*Data from AusAID/World Bank Study: Southern Mongolia Infrastructure Strategy, 2009.
(Reference 7.2.i)
Total
Employees
Expatriate
Employees
(10%)
Mongolian
Employees
(90%)
Mongolian
Family
Members
Total
Population
Cement Plant
270
27
243
756
1026
295
30
265
827
1122
DRI Plant
136
14
122
383
519
Coke Plant
270
27
243
756
1026
Project
Data from AusAID/World Bank Study: Southern Mongolia Infrastructure Strategy, 2009. (Reference
7.2.i). The 2010 Population and Housing State Census reports that the average number of family
members in Mongolian is 3.6. Were this value used for the community projection, the size and cost of
the community would be reduced 10%-15%.
7-2
Total
Employees
Expatriate
Employees
(10%)
Mongolian
Employees
(90%)
Mongolian
Family
Members
Total
Population
Power Plant
161
17
144
451
612
Gasification Plant
122
12
110
346
468
Copper Smelter
515
52
463
1442
1957
Copper Refinery
395
40
355
1106
1501
100
10
90
285
385
Common Facilities
453
45
408
1404
1857
2717
275
2448
7756
10,473
Project
20% of above
Total Direct Population
Influx Population @ 1.0
10,473
Total Community
Population
20,946
~ 21,000
Table 7-1. Population Estimate
More detail on the population data is included in Appendix 7A at the end of this section.
7.3.
HOUSING
Dwelling units have been determined by taking the estimated population figures and
assigning housing types to them. Table 7-2 identifies the dwelling unit quantities required
for the projected future estimated population of 21,000.
Single Family Detached
Number of
Units
Unit Size
(M2)
Lot Size
(M2)
2 bedroom
488
185
700
3 bedroom
319
205
700
% of total housing
11%
Attached Houses
1 bedroom
550
100
420
2 bedroom
550
120
420
3 bedroom
550
135
420
% of total housing
23%
Apartments
1 bedroom
1620
80
100
2 bedroom
1620
90
100
3 bedroom
1620
105
100
% of total housing
66%
Total Units
7317
Table 7-2. Housing Requirements
7-3
Single Family Detached Houses with 2 or 3 bedrooms. The single family detached
houses are allocated primarily for executive and management level workers.
The apartments are allocated for the majority of the community population and would
generally be two or a maximum of three stories high. The sizes of these dwelling units have
been determined by comparison with sizes for similar dwelling types in Ulaanbaatar. Hence,
housing proposed for Sainshand is equivalent to sizes available in urban Mongolia. The
housing proposed is expected to be primarily modular unit construction, built off-site,
transported to Sainshand by truck or rail and then assembled on site. More detail on the
housing data is included in Appendix 7A at the end of this section.
7.4.
COMMUNITY FACILITIES
In addition to housing, the community will have schools, health facilities, and government
services. These are shown in Table 7-3. More detailed data is included in the Appendix at
the end of this section.
Facility Required
Number
Day Care
1: 4,000
Primary School
1: 6,250
Middle School
1: 11,000
High School
1: 11,000
Clinic
1: 3,000
Hospital
1: 15,000
Library
1: 10,000
Community Center
1: 10,000
Post Office
1: 5000
Police Station
1: 7500
Fire Station
1: 15,000
Government Offices
1: 7,500
1: 6,000
Local Merchants
70
1: 300
Local Markets
1: 3,000
Education
Health
Social Institutions
Public Institutions
Recreation
Sports/Athletic Center
Shops and Retail
7-4
7.5.
Number
1: 5,000
1
Table 7-3. Community Facilities
1: 20,000
7-5
7-6
7-7
Site A
Site B
Site C
Site D
Site E
Expandable
Industrial impact
Views, recreation
Access to amenities
Access to transportation
Potential Solar/Wind
Control/Access
Sense of safety
TOTAL
16
22
25
27
29
RANKING RESULTS
Community
Environmental
Security
7.6.
COMMUNITY CONCEPTS
In this section Site A and Site B have been developed as community concepts. Site A
represents an integrated community concept and Site B represents a stand-alone concept.
7.6.1. SITE A: INTEGRATED COMMUNITY
As shown in Figures 7-5 and 7-6, Community Site A is located directly west of Sainshand.
The location is set in a valley formed by two ridges running east to west. The configuration
of the community is long and narrow, with the limitations of the existing ridges defining a
north and south edge.
In this option, workers are housed in proximity to the existing Sainshand community and are
seen as an extension of it. The integrated community model potentially provides benefits to
the existing town and greater interaction between workers and the existing population.
However, greater interaction may also lead to tension with the local population, particularly if
large numbers of single men without families are attracted to work in the SIP. Careful
attention to this issue will be required to make this option work well.
The benefits of being adjacent to Sainshand are primarily related to the increased customer
base for commercial activities in the existing town. There are also potential overlaps in
police and fire protection coverage for the adjacent expansion and the potential for new
schools serving both community populations. This overlap may mean that some of the
emergency service facilities may not need to be as big or that the existing emergency
services of Sainshand could be expanded to support part of the population increase.
7.6.2. SITE B: STAND-ALONE COMMUNITY
As shown in Figures 7-7 and 7-8, Community Site B is located south of the existing town of
Sainshand and west of the SIP and rail marshalling yards. This stand-alone community is
located at the foot of two local peaks. The open terrain does not set many limitations on the
layout possibilities and this allows for a very efficient layout of the overall community.
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
7-8
7-9
7-10
7-11
7-12
7-13
7-14
CEMENT PLANT
Administrative and Maintenance
Opearting shift 1
Operating shift 2
Operating shift 3
Operating shift 4
SUBTOTAL
IRON PELLETS PLANT
Administrative
Process
Engineering
Opearting shift 1
Operating shift 2
Operating shift 3
Operating shift 4
SUBTOTAL
DRI PLANT
Adminstrative
Operations
Maintenance
Opearting shift 1
Operating shift 2
Operating shift 3
Operating shift 4
SUBTOTAL
COKE PLANT
Adminstrative and Maintenance
Opearting shift 1
Operating shift 2
Operating shift 3
Operating shift 4
SUBTOTAL
Power Plant
Administrative (M-F Daytime)
Operations (M-F Daytime)
Opearting shift 1
Operating shift 2
Operating shift 3
Operating shift 4
Maintenance (M-F Daytime)
Maintenance shift 1
Maintenance shift 2
Maintenance shift 3
Maintenance shift 4
SUBTOTAL
Gasification
Administrative (M-F Daytime)
Operations (M-F Daytime)
Opearting shift 1
MONGOLIAN
EMPLOYEES
EXPATRIATE
EMPLOYEES
EMPLOYEES
FAMILY
90%
10%
(MONGOLIAN)
30
60
60
60
60
270
27
54
54
54
54
243
3
6
6
6
6
27
84
168
168
168
168
756
114
228
228
228
228
1026
30
38
7
55
55
55
55
295
27
34
6
50
50
50
50
266
3
4
1
6
6
6
6
30
84
107
20
154
154
154
154
827
114
145
27
209
209
209
209
1122
6
6
16
27
27
27
27
136
5
5
14
24
24
24
24
123
1
1
2
3
3
3
3
14
17
17
45
76
76
76
76
383
23
23
61
103
103
103
103
519
30
60
60
60
60
270
27
54
54
54
54
243
3
6
6
6
6
27
84
168
168
168
168
756
114
228
228
228
228
1026
15
6
25
25
25
25
20
5
5
5
5
161
13.5
5.4
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
18
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
145
1.5
0.6
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
17
42
17
70
70
70
70
56
14
14
14
14
451
57
23
95
95
95
95
76
19
19
19
19
612
56
28
45
76
38
61
Table 7A-1.
Estimate of Population
at Sainshand
20
18
2
10
16
9
14.4
1
1.6
INFLUX POPULATION
Process plant staffing estimates are derived from information received from technology suppliers;
utility and infrastructure staffing estimate is based on Bechtel experience.
7-15
GRAND TOTALS
453
453
2717
18
9
14.4
14.4
14.4
14.4
11
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
110
2
1
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
13
56
28
45
45
45
45
34
12
12
12
12
346
76
38
61
61
61
61
46
16
16
16
16
468
18
72
72
72
72
14
36
36
36
36
464
2
8
8
8
8
2
4
4
4
4
52
56
224
224
224
224
42
112
112
112
112
1442
76
304
304
304
304
57
152
152
152
152
1957
18
54
54
54
54
14
27
27
27
27
356
2
6
6
6
6
2
3
3
3
3
40
56
168
168
168
168
42
84
84
84
84
1106
76
228
228
228
228
57
114
114
114
114
1501
18
2
56
7.2
0.8
23
7.2
0.8
23
7.2
0.8
23
7.2
0.8
23
14
2
45
7.2
0.8
23
7.2
0.8
23
7.2
0.8
23
7.2
0.8
23
90
10
285
2040
230
6352
EMPLOYEES + INFLUX + FAMILIES
76
31
31
31
31
61
31
31
31
31
385
8616
17232
408
45
1404
408
45
1404
COMMON FACILITIES EMPLOYEES + INFLUX + FAMILIES
1857
1857
3714
2448
275
7756
10473
20946
7-16
20,946
LOCATION
Education Institutions
Day Care
Primary School
Middle School
High School
University
Health Institutions
Clinic
Hospital
Social Institutions
Library
Community Center
Public Institutions
Post Office
Police Station
Fire station
Government Offices
Entertainment
Center / Athletic Field
Shops
Local Merchants
Local Market
Neighborhood Market
Mall
Total for Community Facilities
Number of
Facilities
Total
Facility
Built Area
(SM)
Lot Area
Unit Area
(Ha)
Total Lot
Area (Ha)
2,300
11,300
11,600
12,500
-
5
3
2
2
12,044
37,870
19,438
23,802
0.013
0.500
0.500
1.000
0.07
1.68
0.84
1.90
0.00
350
13,500
7
1
2,444
18,851
0.200
1.500
1.40
2.09
200
600
2
2
419
1,257
0.040
0.500
0.08
1.05
200
250
500
250
4
3
1
3
838
698
698
698
0.300
0.300
1.200
1.000
1.26
0.84
1.68
2.79
2,000
6,982
0.600
2.09
35
180
1,500
5,000
70
7
4
1
121
2,444
1,257
6,284
3,491
139,514
0.013
0.300
0.600
1.200
0.91
2.09
2.51
0.84
24.12
Total Ha
per
Dwelling
Type
34.15
22.32
23.11
23.11
23.10
16.20
16.20
16.20
174.40
198.52
Dwelling
Number of
Unit Area
Dwelling
Total Built
(sm)
Units
Area (SM)
Ha/ Per DU
185
488
90,253
0.070
205
319
65,366
0.070
120
550
66,024
0.042
135
550
74,277
0.042
100
550
55,000
0.042
90
1,620
145,830
0.010
105
1,620
170,135
0.010
80
1,620
129,627
0.010
7,318
796,513
936,026
Metric (daily)
Daily Total
(m3)
Potable Water
Residential
Commercial & service Requirements
Sanitary Wastewater
Power
Solid Waste
Unit
Roads/Utilities
Open Space/Recreation
Total Utilities/ Roads / Open Space
Total Community Size
4,189
2,095
6,284
5,027
21
20,946
Total (Ha)
99.3
99.3
198.52
397.03
7-17
8.
This section addresses the initial rapid assessment screening of potential social and
environmental issues potentially associated with SIP, a review of the social and
environmental standards that may apply to the project, identification of project sustainability
opportunities, identification of activities to be addressed in the next phase of SIP, and a
preliminary sustainability vision for the industrial park. This information is organized as
follows: key issues identified in the master plan screening assessment, key areas to
address in next phase activities (addressing both sustainability challenges and
opportunities), and a preliminary sustainability vision for further development in the next
phase of SIP.
Mongolia is entering a period of increased economic development, connecting with new
regional and international markets by taking advantage of the need for natural resourcedriven industries. Mongolias vast natural resources are widely recognized and the countrys
potential growth in developing these resources has drawn international interest, particularly
from China and Russia. We understand that NDIC is promoting SIP as a key element of
Mongolias National Development Strategy geared toward developing export-oriented, high
technology manufacturing and creating a knowledge-based economy.
Development of SIP presents both sustainable development (or sustainability) challenges
and opportunities to be addressed during subsequent phases of project development.
Sustainability challenges will include environmental protection and resource conservation,
particularly in the critical area of water resource management. The project also presents
opportunities for the project to leave a positive development impact in Mongolia through
worker skills development, technology transfer, and enhancement of suppliers capabilities.
Another opportunity area is possible eco-industrial efficiencies aligned with the Government
of Mongolias commitment to the Exemplar Zero Initiative (EZ Initiative)1.
8.1.
Some of the key issues NDIC will need to address are identified below. Others will be
identified in the next phase when additional information and studies become available.
These issues will need focused attention in the next phase of SIP2.
Water: The source of water for SIP will be one of the most significant issues to be
addressed during project development. Water is widely known to be an issue relative to
development in the south-Gobi area, which has a limited non-renewable supply in deep
aquifers and where use of the shallow aquifer could impact animal herders. Piping water
from sources to the north may have impacts on the river and draw international attention or
criticism. A recent conference in Ulaanbaatar sponsored by the World Economic Forums
Water Resources Group, McKinsey, and the Office of the President of Mongolia concluded
that there is sufficient water to sustain mining exploration, but not downstream activities.
The World Bank, the United Nations, and others have conducted water studies for Mongolia,
and these studies and the options for water sourcing for SIP will require a major focus in the
next phase of SIP.
Coal: Currently, some of the U.S. and international finance institutions have constraints or
requirements related to investment in coal-related development due to concerns around
1
The Exemplar Zero Initiative is an international program dedicated to fast-tracking climate mitigation, carbon-eradication and
sustainable energy in all world nations. See www.exemplarzero.org
2
See 8.2 below. The phrase next phase as used frequently in this section 8 is a reference to services to be performed after
this Master Plan and do not form part of Bechtels Master Plan scope.
8-1
8.2.
To fully address the challenges and opportunities, the next phase of the SIP development
will need to include planning in four broad areas of sustainability: meeting social and
environmental standards; stakeholder engagement; maximizing national content; and
integrating sustainability concepts into design and construction.
Each of these areas is important to successful development of SIP and maximizing the
potential benefits industrial park development delivers to Mongolia. Meeting the relevant
3
See previous footnote: not included in Bechtels Master Plan scope of services.
8-2
SIP will need to be designed and constructed to meet both Mongolian and international
social and environmental standards.
Our current knowledge of the Mongolian
environmental laws and standards to protect people and the environment is summarized in
Section 2.0. Meeting the Mongolian standards will include the need to conduct an
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), as well as designing SIP to meet air, water, and
noise standards.
At present, the International Finance Corporations (IFC) Social and Environmental
Performance Standards represent international best practice and are instrumental in
securing project financing and establishing good stakeholder relations on major projects. As
SIP is anticipated to involve external financing, the project will also need to meet the World
Bank/International Finance Corporations (IFC) Social and Environmental Performance
Standards (see Table 8.1 for summary level information). These standards will likely apply
whether NDIC goes to the IFC directly, another international financing institution, or one of
the 60 commercial banks that have signed the Equator Principles, committing to only fund
projects which meet national standards or the IFCs standards, whichever are more stringent
(See Table 8.2 for some key points from the Equator Principles).
Aligning SIP development with Mongolian and World Bank/IFC standards is a prerequisite to
attracting international investors and world class industrial operators to the project. Lenders
will want to know that these activities are in progress and on schedule for timely execution
because they are prerequisites for their investment in the project. Investors will need to
know that these standards have been met in order to support their own financing for
industrial plants. Additionally, some international investors have adopted the IFC standards
as the minimum standard for all their projects. Demonstrating best practice in satisfying the
IFCs social and environmental performance standards is also important to positioning
Mongolia, as it transitions from International Development Association (ICA) programs to
World Bank/IFC programs.
8-3
Identify and compare relevant Mongolian and international environmental and social
standards to identify the more stringent requirements to be satisfied. This includes
comparing Mongolian ambient air and water quality standards, industrial wastewater
discharge quality standards to soil and to water, potable water standards, and define
the project description to be used in the EIA, including the preferred design basis
and alternatives.
Develop an initial strategy for meeting relevant performance standards and division
of roles and responsibilities among project participants (NDIC, PMC, GoM regulatory
agencies, plant developers). Assist NDIC in developing a plan, schedule and cost
estimate for this work. Support NDIC in technical meetings and correspondence with
potential lenders.
Develop the EIA schedule against the SIP timeline. The EIA needs to be completed
to give potential investors and lenders confidence that the project will meet
international standards. It will be important for NDIC to show potential investors that
the project is proceeding and on track to support their due diligence before they
commit to invest.
Define the project description to be used in the EIA, including the preferred design
basis and alternatives.
As at the date of compilation of this Master Plan, no PMC has been appointed.
8-4
Scope the general EIA and develop a Terms of Reference designed to satisfy
Mongolian and international standards. Assist NDIC in issuing the Invitation to
Tender, and evaluating bidders. This may include identifying and recommending
both Mongolian and international consultants, as needed.
Work with NDIC to manage the EIA process. Collaborate with NDIC and its
consultants to familiarize project staff with applicable standards, requirements to
meet the standards, procedures and methodologies, documentation requirements.
The objective is to transfer knowledge of the standards, best practice and process to
meet external requirements to NDIC staff for future use in SIP development.
Assess applicability of other IFC performance standards (e.g. listed in Table 8.1).
For example, to meet the IFC performance standards, it is important to document not
only physical resettlement of people, but also any economic displacement including
nomadic activities. If SIP is developed without conforming to these standards, some
international lenders and investors may be concerned or avoid involvement because
there is no way to conform with these standards and required processes later in
project development, especially once construction has started.
Assist NDIC in developing Terms of Reference for various other studies needed to
meet the relevant performance standards.
Review results of field work, baseline surveys, early drafts of EIA, and other plans to
facilitate that they will meet the applicable standards. Review draft EIA for gaps and
facilitate that it applies best practice both in methodology and in mitigation of
impacts. Prepare recommendations for additions and changes, as needed, working
collaboratively with NDIC.
Summarize the approach to satisfying social and environmental standards in the SIP
marketing plan to inform potential investors and operators.
Assist NDIC in developing the Environmental and Social Management Plan (based
on the EIA) to proactively manage integration of environmental, health, safety, and
social commitments into project design and construction.
Define the environmental impact assessment requirements for each industrial plant
and include in the PIM for future developers.
8.2.2.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Many stakeholders both inside and outside Mongolia will have an interest in the
development of SIP. To be successful, NDIC may need to carry out a proactive and
effective stakeholder engagement program beginning in the next phase of work and
continuing throughout SIP development. For example, the residents of Sainshand will have
an interest in how the project is being developed, and how the environment and their health
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
8-5
Identify and map project stakeholders. This will include the Sainshand community,
nomadic herders, lenders, national and international non-governmental
organizations, such as water NGOs, potential project partners including those who
may assist in the National Content program.
Develop a Stakeholder Engagement Plan for the project addressing both initial
industrial park infrastructure and future industrial plants. Such Plan should also
include government relations: a plan for how to approach, respond to and follow up
with government and ministry regulatory and permitting agencies (e.g. Ministry of
Nature, Environment, and Tourism), as well as Sainshand officials to build key
relationships and streamline interactions with government authorities at all levels.
This may include: understanding and tracking relevant national and local legislation
which may affect the project; developing a permitting plan and schedule; regular
briefs and site visits related to project plans, mitigation, monitoring, and planning for
specific program elements such as local content; and alignment with the EZ
Initiative. The stakeholder engagement plan will include: community outreach
designed to identify community issues; provide information on the project and
opportunities for project participation; and conduct community visits. It will also
include a public relations and media strategy for the project.
Determine how the stakeholder engagement effort will be resourced (e.g. internally
by NDIC or through contracted services)
Define a Sustainability Vision for the project and the Project Design Basis going
forward as information to be disclosed to community stakeholders and lenders.
8.2.3.
Mongolias vast natural resources can support major economic development, but this
potential exceeds the current capacity of its national workforce and businesses to develop
without expatriate assistance. Increasingly, countries like Mongolia are instituting incentives
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
8-6
Review GoM objectives related to national content development (e.g. skills training
based on an international curriculum, development of local businesses/small- and
medium-enterprises (SMEs), technology transfer, capacity-building and succession
planning).
Identify existing worker and supplier capabilities in Sainshand and other areas of
Mongolia that can participate in SIP. This includes surveying workforce and
contractors to determine availability, numbers, skill levels, and specialties of
Mongolian workers, and identifying local and Mongolian suppliers/SMEs that can
participate in the project. This will include consultation with the GoM and local
vocational and other training institutions, as appropriate.
Identify in-country resources which SIP can leverage in developing its national
content program (e.g. technical schools, vocational training centers, business
associations). Partnering with existing resources in-country can help keep costs
down, address cultural needs in the national content program, improve the capacity
of these local entities for future work, and build local ownership of the program.
Define the roles and responsibilities of NDIC, the PMC, and other contractors. This
would include what contractors need to do (for incorporation in the PIM), how NDIC
can optimize or incentivize the delivery of national content in project procurement
and construction, a national content transition program from facility construction to
operations, and a communications program to support a SIP-wide national content
program. The information for the PIM will outline expectations for national content,
such as unbundling of contracts to match local suppliers/SMEs capabilities,
providing bidding support or contracting modifications to local businesses/SMEs,
pairing local businesses/SMEs with larger national or international companies).
8-7
Identify sustainable design and construction criteria for the first phase of SIP. These
criteria should be geared to minimize impacts on natural resources, the environment,
human receptors, and existing local infrastructure.
Objectives may include:
considering site design and layout to maximize conservation of resources including
energy, water, and materials; minimizing environmental impacts such as site runoff,
greenhouse gas emissions; and measures to avoid stress on local infrastructure or
positive shared use of wastewater, electricity, roads and other infrastructure
improvements.
Identify sustainable design and construction criteria for future build out of industrial
plants to be included in the PIM and set sustainability expectations and requirements
for contractors, integrate sustainability into bid specifications, review contractors
proposed programs, and manage contractors performance during execution.
Develop a water conservation and reuse plan for the entire project, including water
demand minimization measures, water conservation approaches, and water reuse
and recycling.
Identify opportunities for use of local materials and supplies (in concert with the
national content planning).
Consider possible opportunities for eco-efficiency across SIP, e.g. using waste
product from one process as the raw material/input stream into a different
process/plant. This needs to be considered relative to the ownership model that
NDIC selects, as the ability to influence this process will vary depending on NDICs
involvement.
8.3.
8-8
8-9
8.4.
Capacity building - Enabling people and institutions to develop processes, skills, expertise,
and capabilities for new enterprises
Eco-efficiency - Efficient use of energy, water, materials, and other natural resources
Equator Principles - a voluntary set of environmental and social guidelines adopted by
commercial banks for project finance, based on IFCs environmental and social performance
standards.
Green design and construction - Maximizing the use of renewable resources, recyclable
materials; environmentally friendly products, packaging, and chemicals; non-hazardous
substances; alternative fuels; energy efficiency; closed-loop systems reducing discharges to
the environment, and other resource conservation methods in project design and
construction
LEED - Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design rating system is a third party
environmental certification system developed by the US Green Building Council. LEED
Certification is achieved at different levels based on the total credits earned in each of
several categories: sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy and atmosphere, materials
and resources, and indoor environmental quality.
Project influx - the migration of people to the area where a new project will be constructed.
This includes both workers hired by the project and opportunistic migrants looking for
employment and other income opportunities.
Public Consultation and Disclosure Disclosure is making information accessible to
interested and affected parties as part of the process of stakeholder engagement.
Consultation is a two-way process of dialogue between the project and its stakeholders.
(IFC, 2007)
Social Investment (also called strategic community development) - Targeted social
investments, or community development initiatives, by which a project benefits local
communities.
Stakeholders persons or groups who are directly or indirectly affected by a project as well
as those who may have interests in a project and/or the ability to influence its outcome,
either positively or negatively (e.g. locally affected communities, individuals or
representatives, national or local government authorities, religious leaders, civil society
organizations, special interests groups) (IFC, 2007)
Stakeholder engagement describes a broad and continuous process of communications
engagement between a company and those potentially impacted by the project.
Stakeholder engagement should span the entire life of a project. (IFC, 2007)
Sustainable design and construction - is the integration of green, functional, and community
design and construction practices to reduce environmental and human impacts, provide
long-term benefits to the community, and reduce project and operational costs.
8-10
Indigenous Peoples
Cultural Heritage
8-11
8-12
9.
9.1.
BASELINE SCHEDULE
The indicative Industrial Park Development and EPC phase schedule for the Sainshand
Industrial Park from Council Decision through Startup of the final plant is 86 months and is
aggressive, especially in the development phase. The initiation of the project is contingent
upon approval of the Master Plan by the Mongolian Government, and the decision of the
Mongolian Government to proceed with the development of the Sainshand area by first
allowing key concurrent activities to begin. This indicative schedule assumes that the Basis
of Schedule as described in section 9.4 below and Schedule Assumptions set out in section
9.5 below are satisfied.
These key activities include laws or legal framework that requires amending or being
enacted early in the program; environmental assessment of the proposed site; sufficient
geotechnical evaluation with surveying of the SIP and the planned Community; the design of
roads and utilities necessary for the temporary housing facilities required by the Cement
Plant (CMP) scope (see section 2.5, Industrial Plants) . One priority for the CMP will be to
establish a source of cement for a concrete batch plant which will supply concrete to all of
the plants to follow. For these activities to start on time, funding or interim financing may be
necessary to commence early work and sustain the pace of front end engineering,
procurement and construction. The Milestone Table below (Figure 9-1) illustrates the
indicative dates for beginning or completing key milestones for the overall SIP program.
Project
Month
Begin
End
SIP Decision
-1
01-JUN-12
Interim Financing
01-JUL-12
01-FEB-13
EIS Approval
13
03-JUN-13
24
02-MAY-14
Plant Concessions
24
01-JUN-14
Cement Plant
44
01-JUL-12
01-JAN-16
66
01-MAR-12
01-MAY-15
66
15-JAN-13
15-NOV-17
75
01-JUN-14
15-AUG-18
79
01-JUN-14
15-DEC-18
76
01-JAN-15
01-SEP-18
76
01-MAR-15
01-SEP-18
76
01-JUN-12
15-SEP-18
83
01-JAN-15
1-MAY-19
Milestones
9-1
Milestones
Project
Month
Begin
End
Power Plant
86
01-MAR-15
1-JUL-19
9.2.
CRITICAL PATH
The overall critical path for the EPC Summary Schedule begins with the Sainshand
Industrial Park (SIP) approval, Concession Granted to build the industrial park, and ends
with incorporation of the Copper Smelter steam into the Power plant.
The schedule critical path milestones and additional critical items identified to date are listed
below:
Master Plan Approval / Council Decision
Creation of the Regulatory / Legal Framework
Selection of the Project Management and Commercial Consultants
Budgetary Approval for the SIP Program
Award of a Park Developer
EIS Approval for the Industrial Park
Financing of the Industrial Park Infrastructure
Temporary Facilities to support craft and staff
Construction of the Industrial Park
Completion of the Cement Plant, Coal Gasification Steam to Dry Reduction Iron.
Construction and Start-up of downstream facilities.
Each specific plant in the Sainshand Industrial Park has its own critical path that is unique in
its own right, and other plants have critical paths that are key to operations of another plant,
i. e. Synthesis Gas from the Coal Gasification Plant is delivered to the Steam Power Plant.
See EPC Summary Schedule Figure 9-2, and also the following for specific plant schedules
with critical path shown as a red line.
CEMENT PLANT
The critical path for the Cement Plant starts at Final Investment Decision (FID)/Notice to
Proceed (NTP), through the award, delivery and installation of the clinker production
equipment and the raw meal production equipment and structural steel to the installation
and first flame in rotary kiln, terminations, loop checks and commissioning and start-up. See
Figure 9-3.
COAL COKING PLANT
The critical path for the Coal Coking Plant starts at FID/NTP and goes through to the award,
delivery and installation of the grinder production equipment, including the coal and coke
oven handling system, flue gas desulfurization system, waste heat boiler, and coke dryer
and the corresponding installation of this equipment. The path then goes through the
completion of piping, electrical, loop checks and commissioning and start-up. See Figure
9-4.
COPPER SMELTER
The critical path for the Copper Smelter starts FID/NTP and goes through the award,
fabrication and delivery of the permanent cathode and the electrolytic cells. The path
continues through to loop checks commissioning and start-up. See Figure 9-5.
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
9-2
9.3.
Any consideration to improving the overall industrial park development or any individual
plant schedule must address the critical path mentioned in section 9.2 preceding.
Improvement in any one critical path may affect the other logical activity paths.
Nevertheless, some of the areas for potential schedule improvement may include the
following:
Early award of raw meal production and critical equipment for the Cement Plant.
Use of tents and heaters to allow installation of concrete in cold weather or allow
other above ground work during the winter.
9.4.
All plants are planned to be located within the boundaries of the proposed Sainshand
Industrial Park. This includes the:
Cement Plant
Coking Coal Plant
Copper Smelter-Refinery
Steam Power Plant
Coal Gasification Plant
Iron Pellet Plant
Direct Reduction Iron Plant
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
9-3
The Geotechnical Award and Investigation that is planned to take place as part of the
Cement Plant will be contingent upon the entire industrial park being done at this time.
Engineering, Procurement and Construction of the Cement Plant may need to begin early
and is independent to the concessions award for the other plants. An expedited financing
approach should be considered since the Cement Plant may be required to start
construction prior to the general concession awards.
Long lead item durations were provided by vendors or derived from recent Bechtel project
experience, as applicable.
The assumed project standard work week in Sainshand is 60 hours or six, ten-hour days per
week.
There is an assumed period of reduced productivity in the winter months, from midNovember to mid-March.
On the EPC Summary schedule, the planned time for the start of construction reflects the
milestone when direct hire personnel mobilize on site for the respective plant.
Bulk feedstock materials are planned to be delivered by truck and/or rail to a central bulk
material handling facility, until the rail line and spur are installed for the Industrial Park.
Site preparation, grading, and drainage are planned to be done by the Industrial Park (Inside
Industrial Park) developer and the plant sites are planned to be turned over at rough grade
(elevation of 898.5 meters) to concessionaires.
Limestone, coal, copper concentrate, and iron ore are planned to be supplied from deposits
in Darkhan, Oyu Tolgoi and Tavan Tolgoi.
Utilities such as potable water, industrial water, waste water, and sewage collection and
treatment are planned to be temporarily supported by the Industrial Park Developer until
permanent facilities are completed.
Temporary fuel lines and telecommunication facilities are planned to be provided by the
Industrial Park developer until permanent line and facilities are constructed.
Prior to and during Startup, any and all operational certificates and licenses, for all required
operating equipment, are planned to be provided by the plants owners and certified by the
pertinent government agencies prior to its use.
Any contractor and client personnel who will join the respective plant start- up including
operation are planned to be trained by the owners and certified by pertinent government
agencies as may be required.
9.5.
The assumptions identified and set out in this section and in the remainder of this report are
aspirations and are not intended to be an exhaustive list of all assumptions that require
further investigation and that may affect the Project. Rather they represent a number of
assumptions that Bechtel has identified to date. Unforeseen and uncontrollable events may
occur that cause these assumptions to be incorrect. No assurance can be made that such
assumptions will be accurate in light of future circumstances. Any party reviewing, reading
or relying on this report should perform its own assessments, and should not rely on this
reports identification or characterization of these assumptions.
All key critical path milestones and critical items occur in a timely manner to support
the indicative Baseline Schedule identified at section 9.1.
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
9-4
The required concessions granted for each of the units is at least 1 month prior to
the start of FEED, with the exception of the Coking Coal and Coal Gasification
Plants, where FEED will start immediately.
Client approvals of design documents, Purchase Order Awards, and Contractual and
Sub-contractual documents are incorporated in the Engineering and Procurement
and Construction durations.
Each plants proposed area will be at the rough grade level required at the issuance
of the Financial Investment Decision (FID)/Notice-To-Proceed (NTP).
The access road to each plant area and construction laydown area are available and
passable by a wide body vehicle and heavy truck.
Industrial potable water supply will be available and sufficient to meet the needs of
the developer and concessionaire.
The Industrial Park will comply with World Bank standards for environmental
protection.
The winter weather will prevent earthwork, piling, and the placement of concrete
from 15 November to 15 March and will reduce above ground productivity by 50% of
every year. All other productivity factors for weather are 100%.
Commitments are made after FID, with the exception of the Cement Plant and long
lead items to be awarded during the FEED, where applicable to maintain the
scheduled completion dates.
Procurement lead times are based on 2011 3rd quarter vendor supplied information.
Pipe material will be spooled at the job site. Piping will be received, staged, spooled
and painted in the laydown yard prior to erection.
The utilities will be designed and constructed at the industrial park to support the
operation of the plants.
9-5
22
;% 8!%-;1&"*%&&
)*7"6%*!"+-
"*%
)
!"#"!$%& '"(!")*
+,)'"-%&!)*%&
% "&")*
*!%'"3
"*+* "*0
./
+&!%'-+*((')#+'%+!%%01-+!)'$2%0+-
'+3%4)'5
'%+!%*&!"!1!")*+-
'+3%4)'5
*0+0%1!&"6%6#"&)'&
/+-"6+!%2%7"*%)33%' "+-((')+ 8
9):;160%!<1(()'!"*0*7'+&!'1 !1'%
)*&!'1 !")*'%(+'+!)'$ !#"!"%&
)-" "!+*64+'6+'5%#%-)(%')*!'+ !
') 1'%"%'*&"6%!8%+'5*7'+&!'1 !1'%
') 1'%') %&&
+ "-"!"%&
-+*!(% "7" +*6-+*!
"*+* "*0
%0%*6
"*+-%)!% 8%()'!
((')#+-
+'5
"*+* "*0
%3%*!-+*!%+6$
-+*!
)* %&&")*&
+&!2A%&!
+"-')+6
)3(-%!%
*61&!'"+-+'5
*7'+&!'1 !1'%
+&"7"%'-+*!
13%-!%'
)4%'
-+*!
!"
#$
#
%
#
&
#
.
%4)331*"!$9+"*&8+*6:
"!%'%(+*62
+ "-"!"%&
!"-"!"%&+*6)+6&
%3()'+'$)1&"*0
)331*"!$
+ "-"!"%&
)331*"!$)1&"*098+&%:
)331*"!$)1&"*098+&%:
1!&"6%)+64+$*7'+&!'1 !1'%
-+*%)+6
+*%)+6
#$
#$
)
*+
&
!
'(%
'
#$
#
,+
-+
#$
.9/:
!
,
"!%'%(+'+!")*='+6"*0+*6'+"*+0%
'+*&()'!+!")*>"084+$&+*6)+6&
-+*%)+6
+*%)+6
'+*&()'!+!")*>+"+'!84)'5&
+6"!%
+"-+'6
;1-5!)'+0%))(
+!%'"+-+*6-"*0>!+ 5%'&=% -+"3%'&=
!"-"!"%&
+ "-"!"%&9%? -16"*0()4%':
!"-"!"%&"&!'"@1!")*+*6)--% !")*9"* -16"*0()4%':
,3%
4
.
. 2,
-3
. ". 2-
.%
.
#$
#$
!
!
#
%
&0&
/0
!
"
"
)
1
0
0
"
"
#
'(%
'(% "
)
"
"
"
.)
)
#0!!
*0"*%%'"*0
') 1'%3%*!
)*&!'1 !")*+*6!+'!(
!
0
.
!
#0!!
*0"*%%'"*0
') 1'%3%*!
)*&!'1 !")*+*6!+'!(
0
#0!!
*0"*%%'"*0
') 1'%3%*!
)*&!'1 !")*+*6!+'!(
!
0
,
A
#
#0!!
*0"*%%'"*0
') 1'%3%*!
)*&!'1 !")*+*6!+'!(
!
#
2
#0!!
*0"*%%'"*0
') 1'%3%*!
)*&!'1 !")*+*6!+'!(
/
!
0
#0!!
*0"*%%'"*0
') 1'%3%*!
)*&!'1 !")*+*6!+'!(
!
0
;2
#0!!
*0"*%%'"*0
') 1'%3%*!
)*&!'1 !")*+*6!+'!(
!
0
Use of the Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
9-6
00
939
,#,,
$:#-#
(#
##,##
)(%&%
. #,,
!
"
"
$,,#
+5
#-
%)
)0&'
'##
%/)%%+)/
)',01,
"
!
"
!
,-
',,
,3,
$$
)
,3,
(
,)
,)$'2),
'2),
,)'2),
',,21##'2),
,<
! ''
,0%5
#4(
#,
(
,<
)''
7
-
/&30#'
#
,<
(
,<
,)$%5
#('
(
,)$'2),
, <
,),
(
,),
)$''
)$#'
,)$
(
,)$
,)$
(
,)$
,)$
%#
(#,0(
,06##
(
,)$
,)$
),
4
#(
#'
,0(,
'+$1+% %&
>'
7
-
+=
+
7
#
*
-#%5
#4
+=
" +
7
'-
#%5
#4
>'
,
+=
,
7
-
+=
%#
9
8,
7
-
),
4
#
$&+1$&)
7
-3
###,
'##
(
,
##,3/
-0/
,3
$4
$4
,-
7
-
9 #-#,
(
,
,
&4
*
,#
#
$0
-
#,0'
#,
(
,
,
7
-
7
-
" #68
(
,
,
+=
! &4
###,*
,#09
3'
09
#-#2
(
,
7
-
'##9 8,
7
-&4*
,#
#
7
-
+=
3 3
#
%5
#4
#
>'
7
-
+=
#
>'
7
-
+=
$4
2#,
3
#
>'
7
-
+=
$4/#-#%5 #4
#
>'
7
-
+=
(
,)$
#
7
-
+=
--##
-$
*
-#%5
#4
<
(
,)$%5
#('
#
/3+
:/3+
-
#,
$4
$4
$4
3
#
%5
#4
$4
#
*
-#0'##0
78
$4
%#
%5
#40#:#
$4
),
#0'
##
$4
+
7
0$
06#2&4#
#,
$4
$ )))/0&+&1'
'$44;0$44#,,##
(-
)',01,
,3,
9#%%
',01,0'2),
$4
'
#
%#?-
4#@#
%#?-
&
'
&,
'
&,,0
!
"
"
$44$4
"
!
"
!
Use of the Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
9-7
00
82 8.#..
$;#4 #
$%&'$()(*
#!
(#
# # .# #
!
&(,*,
!
!
!
!
!
)!,,
!
!
!"
!
!
!
!
!
!
$..#
&0*)
-6#4
,,
"
)##
&).
"
"
&) )
!) ).0,6#5 ( #.
. >
(. >
&) ).
(. ">
*!$$
(. &$
. &$
(. &$
. &$
)-$1-,,*
-:
=4
@)
-:
=4
@)
-:
!'..;#< #. 5
-:
@)
*!#
=4
*!#
-:
-:
.
!&. 5 #
=4
=4
=4
.
(.
.
(.
)##
$5
$5
. 4
=4
!8#4#.
(.
=4
(.
.
-:
$*-1$*&
(.
.
=4
-:
!, #89.
*!#
*!#
=4
-:
" !)##89.
!# 79
*!#
=4
-:
*!#
*!#
*!#
@)
=4
-:
*!#
=4
-:
*!#
*!#
=4
-:
!$4'. .
*!#
*!#
*!#
@)
=4
*!#
*!#
@)
=4
*!#
*!#
*!#
*!#
-:
*!#
@)
=4
*!#
*!#
=4
-:
*!#
=4
-:
(. &$
@)
=4
-:
!$4$9+4#. 5
*!$5
*!$5
*!$5
*!$5
*!$5
*!$5
!2#,6#5
*!$5
*!$5
*!$5
*!$5
*!$5
*!$5
*!$5
*!$5
*!$5
*!$5
*!$5
) #,#<4
!*#,#<4$55#..#
,#<4
) *.
) #,#<4
!*#,#<4$55#..#
*!$5
*!$5
*!
*!$$
,#<4
) *.
!*#) *. .4 !
!
!
!"
!
*!$$
(. &$
(##5.
!
(4
&$) )
. &$
!
(. &.
. &$
!
&$# )?
!4 #.
!
(. &$)3&.
. "> . &.
' 2-
!
"
. 4
!
& .2 .
&).01.
).. .2 .
! .2 .
-= #
!).01.
!
!
!
!
!
"
"
Use of the Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
"
*!$5
*!
"
*!$$
9-8
1"1
868-#-$<#.#
(#
##- ##
!
*(&)&
!/ #-"
!
!
!
!"
!
!
!
$--#
'5#
.
% !&&
&0*&&'*0
!
!
!
!"
!
!
"
*1)%
8#
&&
*%12
!%-12-1%3*-
*%%
(-"@ -@
-*- (-
@
(-*$&5#(%
% ---6-
'A
> .
B%
'A
> .
B%
'A
> .
B%
'A
'A
!#.%9)
:;
'A
!.$-#-4
-*$
"
"
"
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
!.%
6#
" !$#6#
>
.
>
.
B%
$$
> .
B%
'A
> .
B%
!&<<) 4%
#
#
> .
B%
B%
> .
B%
#
#
#
B%
>
.
>
.
(-
#
> .
'A
-
(-
-
(-
> .
!%##8:-
-
> .
$)'2$)*
> .
(-
-
> .
"" !#7 :
(-
-
> .
(-
#
'A
!& #$-
(-
%##
$4
$4
-.
> .
" !8#.#-
$4?
$4
$4
" !#.%9*-#;
$4
"
!6#&5#4
$4
$4
$4
!*-#1%##
$4
$4
$4
$***01)')2%
%
#
&
#C.
!% !$44?1$44#--##
4
#D#
&
#C. $44$4
)!$$
%)-
!%)--1
!
!
!
!"
!
!
!
!
!
(.
(-#
# -
B%
'A
!
"
#
> .
!$6. ##6#
!
#
B%
'A
!
(-*$
# -
B%
'A
!-#
(-*$
# -
> .
'A
!.
(-*-
-*$
%'$2'&&)
(-*$
(## 4-
!-6
(-*$
*-6-
"
*$#% ?
-*$
!% ---6-
*$%%
-*$
(-%3*-*$
(-@ -
@
*%%
!.#-
'>#
06#'
!061#% #
-%3*-* (-%3*-*
-"@
!%%-1&5#4(#-
"
*%12
!
!
!"
!
!
"
"
"
Use of the Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
"
"
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
9-9
7 '7
8'
*+$%(&)&(%,$
$%&'%(&)$
#!
)#
## -##
!
! ! ! ! ! !" ! ! !
*)%$%
!/#- "
%0*%%(*0
!
!
!
!
!"
!
"
!
!".2&## 2*-6
'
" !
" #$
'
!
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
&(,3(%%$
-
!0-$ 8
.
-
!69#-
.
-
!6,
.
-
!9'2';
.
) .
!,5#6 28-
.
!55
#%7#6
,$(3,$*
" '0
'0
" '0
'0
" '0
.
2
.
2
'0
" '0
'+
))3'
( '
,(
4
5(+
2
" '0
'0
.
.
*
*
'0
-
"" !#'8
*
*
1
*
*
/
/
-
/
.
-
*
*
.
-
*
*
.
.
*
*
/
.
-
!-
*
/
/
-
*
*
*
/
.
-
/
.
-
*
*
*
.
*
*
.
-
/
*
-
"
/
-
!,# $<-
,(
,(
,(
2
,(
2
,(
,(
2
,
,(
2
,(
,(
,(
2
"
!&##
!*
-#
2&#
#
" !*
-6
2$#
2
,58-2)$-
$($3&2&%($*
'+6
'
!
!
!
!"
!
!
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
,(
Use of the Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
,(
(
,(
,(
,(
''+6
,(
,(
,(
,(
!&!,66:2,66#--#
#
!
,(
,(
,
2
,(
,(
,(
2
,(
,(
,(
,(
2
"
"
/
-
"
"
/
.
-
"
"
"
"
*"+,
!
! ! ! ! ! !" ! ! !
"
(
"
'
'
"
&#$
"
("
'
)
'(
!-
"
! .# -
#$
!0$52#&#
!-5-
!&1-231-2&4*-
!
9-10
7$7)$7
&0
6
%#
# # -# #
!
'%+(+
!"
!
!
!
!
!
!
"
( )*+
( ,*+
"
"2
!$,
- 4
"
"
"#
3
3
.
3
.
"2
3
.
"2
3
"2
!#.&-,4
3
3
"2
.
.
3
3
"2
!
$(,1$('
"2
(
(
(
#
!
(
"2
!# 6:
"2
!+ #;:-
.
3
"2
.
"2
" !)##;:-
(
.
"2
!&-#>#, -
3
"2
!- 40(24<#.#=
!$#(7-
.
"2
(
&$
1&
1
#
!
1
"2
#
!
1
#
!
"2
!;#.#-
1
#
!
1
#
!
!2#+5#4
1
#
!
" !)##
1
#
!
1
#
!
1
#
!
!$06#3(4# #0,7
!$
1
#
!
0'(
1 &4
(,(1)0)+,('
5
05
!"
%.
(
"2
"2
.
"2
(
3
"2
!
(
3
(
(
.(
( .
),$1,++(
1
!&#.-0) #-
( '
&"1
!
(
/01(
( '
,*+
!. #-
'
)*+
&
!) )0+5#4 % #
$%
&
! -2 -
$%
!)-01-
!
!
!
!
!
!
"
"
Use of the Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
"
1
001
"
#
9-11
$*
)'%&(&%
'+)
$%&'((')&()
#
(#
##,##
$(')'
.
#,,
&0,120,
,3,
&,,42##&4$,
!
-#1&##1$,5#6#,
"
/)31#&#
-#,
!
%64--##
#*-#,5
/#-,5
"
:%,1,
<+,
!
&,,,4<6,
,+,5,
#,1=,,,1/,
,
3
3#'7#5
"
&##<:,1,1*-,
!
'#<:,
!
$,5#<:
#8:
!
!
!
<#-#,
!
3#'7#5
!"
&##
'#'7#51#;#
!
$,5#1)#1#+3:,1(
!
"
"
!
"
!
"
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
+,,#
%7#-
& ''
$1)&
&##
,-
&59&6#
$&12
& +5591+55#,,##
++
$&,12,
&,,,3,
$,3,
(,$
&4$,
,$&4$,
,!>
(,!>
,>
,$+&4$,
(,>
(,$+&4$,
,">
,$,
(,">
(,$,
$&&
$&&
(,$+'7#(&
/3%
$+&&
$+#&
,$+
(,$+
,$+
,$
(,$+
(,$
,$+
$+
,$+
%?
6%?
=&
#
6%?
=&
6-
6-
#
#
=&
#
6-
%?
=&
#
66-
%?
%?
=&
#
=&
6-
#
=&
6-
%?
#
=&
#
6-
%?
%?
=&
=&
%?
%?
#
#
6-
6%?
=&
=&
%?
%?
#
6-
%?
(,$+
,
(,
6-
,
6-
,
%?
6-
,
6-
6-
(,
(,
(,
(,
&##
,3+5
+5
+5
+5
+5
+5
+5
+5
+5
+5
+5
)%)2&1&'%)$
%6
#
(-
''<#,
+)%2+)$
!!
&%+2%'
')
!
'/$''%$/
'#@-
+5
&),
)
++
!
"
"
!
"
!
"
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
Use of the Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
9-12
$
,
(&%*+
*%&'(
$%&'(%&)'($$%*+
(
# "
+#
##-##
$+& (&
/#--
*1-2)1-
-3-
*--4)##*4$-
**2&7#5+#
"
0(32 #*#
.#-
!
$-9+#*2+%64
..###,.#
-5
%:5-2%:2;-
$5.#,.# -5
"
0- -2'#:#
,% -5
*--0-'5---2#
#;6-
&/ <26-
!
-'-2,.-
%$'-
;#73#-
#-2=---20-
"
33#&7#5
!
*##;<
!
&#;<-
!
!
"
'--#
%7#.
* &&
#8<
!
!
!
;#.#-
!"
3#&7#5
*##
$-#2*##
!
%62'28#4(5##-
$2(*
"
*##
!
.
!
*59*6
#
$
*2)
"
!
%6
#
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
+.
''
$*-2)*---3-
$
-$*4$-!>
$
*
+-$*4$-
+-!> ->
$*
-$'*4$-
+->
+-$'*4$-
-">
-$-
+-">
+-$'&7#+*
+-$-
+-$'**
03%
$'
#*
-$'
+-$'
-$'
-$
+-$'
+-$
-$'
+-$'
-$'
%?
6.
%?
=*
6.
%?
#
6.
=*
6.
%?
#
=*
6.
#
=*
6.
%?
#
=*
#
6.
%?
#
=*
6.
%?
#
=*
%?
%?
#
=*
6.
%?
+-$'
6.
=*
#
=*
%?
#
6.
%?
=*
6.
%?
#
=*
#
6.
%?
-
6.
%?
-
6.
%?
+-
-
6.
+-
-
6.
6.
+-
-
6.
%?
+-
-
6.
%?
+-
+-
*##
##-30.20
-3'5
'5
-.
'5
'5
'5
'5
'5
'5
'5
'5
'5
(
%()*2*&%
($
&&;#-
' (%)'($
!
*%')%&&(
!!
&0$&&%$0
*#&#@.
&#@.
*(-
!
"
"
!
Use of the Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
"
!
'555
(
"
!
!
''
!
9-13
77
>&4'0>*-**
,-95-'.0
!$"%%"$
!"#"
-
,
&'(')*&+',-
$2+!,*-
(.0.@0
.2+
.5)
-5*'.0%.<
-9.*'&'.5)
"$"
./,0*',-*
#$"$!"#$%
1,22-')3.-*4.-56
'%+.-5#78 .&0'*
#'0'*.-5,.5*
$2+,.)!,*-
,22-') .&0'*
,22-')!,*-3%4.*6
,22-')!,*-3%4.*6
'*5,.51.)-9.*'&'
.-,.5
,.5,2+0'
.-,.5
,.5,2+0'
"#$% 3""%"6
%,&**%0.-',-&**,- -.-&-
'%+..',-:8.5-.-5.-.
$.-*+,'.',-;!41.)*.-5,.5*
.-,.5
,.5,2+0'
.-,.5
,.5,2+0'
$.-*+,'.',-;.0
".'41,<*
%.5'
.0=.5
>0<',.,,+
.'.0!.-50-;'.&<*:
#'0'*
.&0'*3?&05-+,16
#'0'**'@',-.-5,00&',-3-&05-
8.*9:,<:+,-5.5)
A
20'::%,-5.5)
1.5
-5
,22-').5)
"---,2+0'
#78,2+0'
,22-')#'0'*,2+0'
$2+B!,*-
(.0.@0 >-%2.--'.2+
A 1.5
,2+0'.2+
,22-')
.&0'*,2+0'
%4.*!,*-.5)
%4.*!,*-.5)
1.5
A,.5,-'.&'
%+.,&2-'.',-
"---,2+0'
0,* -.-&-
8.*9:,<:%,-5.5)
1.5
A,.5,-'.&'
1.5
A.0,-'.&'
"---.-5%,&2-'
'
'%+:8.5-:.-5.-.,2+0'
20'::%,-5.5)
"---,2+0'
.'.0-'
>- 00.-58.-0.@@.*
".'41,<*,2+0'
>.00.*'%0.&2-'
.0-*'.005
>-.0-*'.00
>-$*'-
.0=.5'.'+
,2+
',&<+0.'*
'.&<&0.2-*'.00.',
.&0')#78,2+
#78C-*'.005C$*'5
,-(),*-*'.005
#78$*'5.-5,2+0'
0+.&<*-*'.005 %+-*'.005
-*0.',-:$*'.-5$-,(
Use of the Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
9-14
10.
Except where stated otherwise, the capital cost estimate contained in this Section is based
on data and design bases provided to Bechtel by NDIC or on behalf of NDIC by other
agencies of the Government of Mongolia contacted by Bechtel at NDICs direction. Where
specific data was not so provided, Bechtel has developed further details from the data that
was provided, and made assumptions to develop the potential alternative sites parameters.
Except where stated otherwise, NDIC has previously approved such developments and
assumptions by approval of previous task reports (including any changes directed by NDIC)
submitted to NDIC as part of the scope of work of this Master Plan Study.
This Report describes the potential alternative sites looked at by Bechtel at the time of this
Report pursuant to design basis and assumptions outlined in the preceding paragraph.
These parameters may change along with other aspects of the SIP as further analysis
(including site conditions), preliminary/front end engineering, detailed design, further
investigations and other necessary data and services are performed. Those tasks are not
part of the scope of this Master Plan Report, but should be completed before making any
capital investment decisions.
Due to uncertainties necessarily inherent in relying upon estimates, actual results may differ,
perhaps materially, from the estimates made in this Report, and Bechtel and its affiliates do
not represent that any estimates will necessarily be achieved.
Any assumptions identified and set out in this section and in the remainder of this Report are
not intended to be an exhaustive list of all assumptions that require further investigation and
that may affect the Project. Rather they represent a number of assumptions that Bechtel
has identified to date. Any party reviewing, reading or relying on this Report should perform
its own assessments, and should not rely on this reports identification or characterization of
such assumptions.
10.1.
ESTIMATE BASIS
The plant scope and schedule basis for the capital cost estimate are the Sainshand
Industrial Park descriptions contained in the preceding sections.
This capital cost estimate includes only the up-front cost to construct the facility, and does
not include any cost of operations.
The capital cost estimates are represented as Indicative Estimates with an accuracy of
plus and minus forty to fifty percent in accordance with the Study contractual requirements.
(See Exhibit 1-A, Clause 5.1 of the NDIC/Bechtel Contract for Consultants Services.) In
general, the preparation of the estimates was substantially in accordance with Bechtel
Class-5 EPC capital cost estimates with an expected accuracy of minus ten percent to plus
forty to fifty percent. This range is consistent with the Bechtel Estimate Classifications for
Class-5 Conceptual Estimates upon which the estimate development methodology was
based.
Third-party licensors and/or equipment vendors provided indicative pricing for their
respective process units. Bechtel adjusted these indicative prices to the timing and location
of the SIP development. Specifically, materials, labor, engineering services, and other costs
were extracted from the third-party provided indicative estimates, and converted to the
common estimate basis for SIP. To supplement these vendor/licensor estimates, Bechtel
used in-house and third-party data from similar projects.
Bechtel estimated capital costs for utilities and common facilities using equipment and
material designs and quantities developed in accordance with the scopes as presented in
the preceding report sections.
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
10-1
Currency
Australia
Australian Dollar
0.90769
Canada
Canadian Dollar
0.95354
China
Yuan Renminbi
6.41539
0.69686
India
Indian Rupee
44.1901
Japan
Yen
Kazakhstan
Tenge
143.303
South Korea
Won
1050.31
Mongolia
Tugrik
1248
Russia
Rouble
27.6208
Switzerland
Swiss Franc
0.78763
United Kingdom
Pound Sterling
0.61029
77.27
Bulk Materials pricing is based on current unit material prices at the summary commodity
level at current day pricing from Bechtel in-house data as of September 2011.
Construction execution, for the purposes of the estimate, assumes that the great majority of
installation work will be done on a direct-hire basis; that is, use of subcontracts in the
estimate is minimized. This simplifies the estimate preparation as all-in subcontract
quotations are generally not required. Subcontract based costs have been used for some of
the common utilities and common facilities such as field-erected tanks, buildings,
telecommunications, portions of the sitework, painting, and roads.
Construction Labor
The construction labor force is planned to be comprised of 10% local labor and the
remainder temporary workers from other countries such as China, Philippines, etc.
The construction work schedule is planned to be 60 hours per week, six ten hour days per
week.
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
10-2
10-3
Catering, utilities, maintenance and operations costs are variable and based
on the computed number of camp-days which are dependent on jobhours
and schedule. Cost per camp-day was applied using historical unit pricing for
similar project camp operations.
The construction camp costs used by Bechtel in computing the capital cost estimate
are estimated at $5,000 per person at the peak population of 19,000, plus $10 per
day per person.
Remote Construction Operations Costs include such costs as local transportation,
personnel recruiting, mobilization and demobilization of foreign labor, concrete batch plant
operations and communications. These costs were based on estimated direct craft hours
and priced on a cost per direct hour basis. The cost for remote construction operations
Bechtel used in computing the capital cost estimate is $3.50 per direct construction labor
hour.
Commissioning and Startup Services
The capital cost estimates cover the EPC Contractors responsibilities through project turnover and includes the cost for plant commissioning & startup services, exclusive of Ownerprovided operators. These costs include startup supervision labor costs, craft labor support,
vendor field services support during startup, training manuals, travel, consumables, small
tools, startup spare parts, early home office support and all other services to commission,
startup and turnover a fully operational project to the Owner. These costs were based on
Bechtel experience. The estimated cost for commissioning and startup services used by
Bechtel in computing the capital cost estimate averages $1.50 per direct construction labor
hour.
Initial Fills of Catalysts, Chemicals, Refrigerants, Lubricants
Estimated costs were included in the capital cost estimate for catalysts, chemicals and
lubricants [based on vendor-recommended first fill consumables and amounts and based on
pricing effective in September 2011] and are based on recent Bechtel project experience.
Construction and Startup Spare Parts
Estimated allowances are included in the capital cost estimate to cover anticipated spare
parts during construction and commissioning/startup. Additional costs are included and
shown separately to cover plant capital and warehouse spare parts. Spare parts are
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
10-4
10-5
10.2.
Subject to the assumptions, clarifications and exclusions set out above and in the remainder
of this Report, the estimated capital cost of the facilities within the boundaries of the
Sainshand Industrial Park is US$9,516,374,000. This estimated capital cost is divided
among the individual facilities as follows:
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
10-6
Facility
Coke Plant
1,822,276
Copper Plant
1,731,576
379,061
DRI/HBI Plant
576,184
Cement Plant
315,029
Power Plant
1,137,349
704,511
Common Facilities
2,850,388
Total SIP
9,516,374
Coke Plant
239,936
366,863
Copper Plant
302,962
273,735
499,484
174,111
134,199
1,414,594
113,167
16,541
277,974
1,822,276
477,557
164,139
129,660
1,348,052
107,844
11,541
264,139
1,731,576
102,944
35,445
19,746
243,184
19,455
4,335
48,055
315,029
15,923,560
15,224,438
3,281,816
Cement Plant
29,123
55,926
10-7
DRI/HBI Plant
103,492
111,447
135,407
46,621
48,647
445,615
35,649
7,027
87,892
576,184
4,316,770
Coal Gasification
170,493
78,318
68,114
105,377
60,653
53,387
536,341
42,907
17,795
107,468
704,511
3,359,363
Power Plant
224,151
94,693
97,555
337,308
56,145
74,699
884,550
70,764
8,541
173,494
1,137,349
2,508,000
10.3.
Common Facilities
536,851
403,864
118,207
845,630
112,346
211,851
2,228,750
178,300
8,533
434,806
2,850,388
26,806,122
Total SIP
1,669,833
1,442,826
283,876
2,611,034
686,412
699,893
7,393,874
591,510
79,340
1,451,650
9,516,374
74,841,670
Subject to the assumptions, clarifications and exclusions set out above and in the remainder
of this Report, the estimated capital cost of the support facilities outside of the boundary of
the Sainshand Industrial Park is US$1,290,454,000. This includes the new permanent
community, and rail and roads external to the park. This estimated capital cost is divided
among the individual facilities as follows:
10-8
Facility
Community
693,935
Roads
33,297
563,222
1,290,454
PMC
180,540
Community
514,347
16,678
13,494
544,519
43,562
105,854
693,935
10.4.
Roads
4,294
6,365
10,196
2,012
676
2,585
26,128
2,090
5,079
33,297
Total
60,747
216,591
552,064
81,115
27,128
74,952
1,012,598
81,008
196,849
1,290,454
PMC
150,000
3,000
153,000
27,540
180,540
2,482,283
63,100
2,545,383
ALTERNATE LOCATIONS
Subject to the assumptions, clarifications and exclusions set out above and in the remainder
of this Report, the estimated capital cost of the Coke Plant, Copper Plant, and Iron Ore
Plants at alternate locations follows. The estimated capital cost includes all facilities
required for stand-alone facilities as described in Section 6. The estimated capital cost for
the Iron Ore Plants includes the Coal Gasification Plant required to supply reducing gas.
Facility
2,556,729
2,046,244
2,908,314
10-9
Darkhan
462,867
620,952
90,763
638,504
198,796
238,426
2,250,308
180,025
34,340
443,641
2,908,314
20,172,899
Tavan Tolgoi
408,961
474,096
2,713
673,140
234,122
199,213
1,992,245
159,380
15,095
390,010
2,556,729
21,256,215
Oyu Tolgoi
341,416
348,697
4,308
559,298
187,206
155,584
1,596,509
127,721
9,876
312,139
2,046,244
17,654,357
10-10
11.
11.1.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This section summarizes the approach, assumptions, methodology, and key results of a
preliminary economic analysis of the proposed industrial plants for the Sainshand Industrial
Park (SIP). The analysis is based on: (i) plant requirements and capital cost estimates that
Bechtel developed in previous stages of this Master Plan Study; (ii) macroeconomic
assumptions provided by NDIC; (iii) long-range commodity price forecasts (on an ex-factory
or delivered cost basis at Sainshand) developed by CRU Strategies (CRU); and (iv) other
generic assumptions based on Bechtels experience conducting preliminary economic
analyses for proposed industrial projects internationally.
Bechtel developed a Microsoft Excel (Excel) Economic Model to evaluate the economic
feasibility of SIP based on forecasted after-tax nominal cash flows to international investors
over an assumed economic life of 30 years. The analysis assumed that the coke plant, iron
pellet plant, DRI/HBI plant, copper smelter, and cement plant would sell all of their products
at prevailing market prices in domestic or export markets, and that the coal gasification plant
would sell synthesis gas (syngas) and the power plant would sell power within SIP at prices
that would result in an acceptable return on investment.
The analysis initially assumed that the capital costs and operating costs of common facilities
and utilities would be recovered through charges to the industrial plants. As described
below, this assumption was modified in subsequent scenario analyses conducted to
enhance the economic feasibility of the industrial plants.
The primary measure of project economics used in the study was the unleveraged after-tax
internal rate of return (IRR), calculated based on forecasted unleveraged after-tax cash
flows for each plant. Other financial metrics calculated by the Economic Model included
leveraged after-tax return on equity (ROE) based on generic financing assumptions, net
present value (NPV), and payback period.
Alternate sites were evaluated for the DRI/HBI plant, iron ore pelletizing plant, copper
smelter and coke plant. For these analyses, Bechtel adjusted the capital cost estimates for
the different sites and commodity price forecasts were adjusted for freight to/from the
alternate locations. No allocations of common facilities and utilities were necessary, except
between the iron plants at Darkhan, as each industrial plant at an alternate site is assumed
to have its own dedicated infrastructure and utilities. At Darkhan, the costs of the coal
gasification plant and other utilities were allocated between the iron ore pelletizing plant and
the DRI/HBI plant based on expected usage.
Detailed descriptions of Base Case assumptions for all the industrial plants at SIP and the
alternate sites can be found in Sections 11.4 to 11.13.
11.1.1. BASE CASE RESULTS
Table 11.1 summarizes the results of the Base Case economic analysis. To illustrate the
impact of infrastructure charges on project economics at SIP, unleveraged after-tax IRRs
are shown before and after allocation of infrastructure charges to each industrial plant.
11-1
Industrial Plant
Base Case
Sainshand
(Before
Allocation*)
Base Case
Sainshand
(After
Allocation*)
Base Case
Alternate Sites
Coke Plant
15.9%
15.2%
9.0%
Cement Plant
6.5%
N/A
N/A
0.7%
N/A
1.0%
DRI/HBI Plant
N/A
N/A
N/A
Copper Smelter
N/A
N/A
0.3%
10.5%**
10.5%**
N/A
Power Plant
10.4%**
10.4%**
N/A
* Allocation of annual charges for infrastructure e.g., materials handling, roads and rail, telecommunications,
interconnecting piping, site preparation
** Based on the generic financing and tax assumptions, after-tax unleveraged IRR of 10.4%-10.5% is
associated with an after-tax leveraged return on equity of 15%
N/A Not applicable; either because the plant is not in analysis scope or because after-tax unleveraged IRR
cannot be calculated due to poor project economics
The high cost of power at SIP is expected to have a significant negative impact on
the economic performance of all industrial plants and utilities, except the coke plant,
which is designed to be a net producer of steam, whose price is determined based
on the price of power. This high cost of power is a result of the equipment
redundancy required to power the plant in the event of steam shortage from the
industrial plants.
The capital and operating costs of infrastructure are significant, both at SIP and at
the alternate sites. At SIP, these contribute to high annual charges for infrastructure,
especially for projects with otherwise marginal economics. At the alternate sites,
where support infrastructure is included in (and thus increases) the capital cost
estimate, the capital and operating costs of infrastructure are expected to
significantly reduce economic returns.
Low operating income and high capital costs contribute to the low expected
unleveraged after-tax IRR of the copper smelter.
11-2
Supplying power from the grid, instead of constructing a dedicated power plant to
supply the electric load within SIP as proposed in Task 2
To further enhance the expected economic feasibility of the industrial plants at SIP, NDIC
directed Bechtel to develop and conduct analyses on additional scenarios, including:
A 50% increase in the proposed capacity of the copper smelter to take advantage of
economies of scale in construction and production
Table 11.3 shows the estimated progressive improvement in expected unleveraged after-tax
IRR for each industrial plant that is expected to sell its output outside SIP under different
scenarios. To differentiate between different levels of government support that may be
required to make different industrial plants economically feasible, unleveraged after-tax
IRRs are not shown for additional scenarios once the expected unleveraged after-tax IRR
exceeded 10-12% assumed to be the range of unleveraged after-tax IRRs foreign
investors may expect in preliminary economic assessments of investments in Mongolia 1.
Scenario
Cement
Plant
Coke
Plant
Iron Ore
Pelletizing
Plant
Copper
Smelter
DRI/HBI
Plant
10.8%
10.4%
6.1%
1.8%
N/A
4.2%
8.1%
4.9%
N/A
12.0%
11.4%
10.5%
6.6%
N/A
11.6%
7.1%
N/A
7.1%
N/A
7.1%
6.1%
7.1%
10.4%
N/A After-tax unleveraged IRR cannot be calculated due to poor project economics
With power supplied from the grid and with the cost of infrastructure borne by the
GoM, the cement plant and the coke plant at SIP may be economically feasible
without further government incentives.
11-3
Under the Revised Base Case assumptions (grid power and GoM-owned
infrastructure), the iron ore pelletizing plant at SIP would likely require tax incentives
(exemption from VAT and customs duty on EPC cost, zero VAT rating for iron ore
pellet exports, and Mongolian tax holiday) to become economically feasible.
Also under the Revised Base Case assumptions, increasing the capacity of the
copper smelter and incorporating government incentives in the scenarios considered
may only result in a project with marginal economics. According to the sensitivity
analysis, reduction in capital cost and/or increase in commodity pricing may be
required.
The DRI/HBI plant at SIP is not expected to break even on a cash flow basis, even
with government tax incentives and a water cost subsidy, as long as the syngas
price stays above US$6/MMBtu in 2011 US$. Additional government incentives
directed at the coal gasification plant to reduce syngas price to approximately
US$3/MMBtu are likely required.
In general, project economics are most sensitive to changes in commodity prices and capital
costs.
11.1.3. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In summary, key conclusions from the economic analysis of this study include:
An integrated, dedicated power plant at SIP, established as part of the study scope,
is not expected to generate electricity at a competitive price; supplying power from
the grid appears to be a more economic option for the SIP industrial plants as a
whole.
The costs of infrastructure and utilities are significant, and recovery of the costs
through infrastructure charges and utility charges will likely cause most projects at
SIP and the alternate sites to not be economically feasible. GoM ownership and
financing of infrastructure and utilities is critical to enhancing the economics of most
industrial plants.
The proposed coke plant may be economically feasible at SIP or Tavan Tolgoi, if the
GoM provides basic infrastructure and utilities.
With power supplied by the grid, the cement plant proposed for SIP may also be
economically feasible if the GoM provides basic infrastructure and utilities.
With appropriate GoM incentives (such as exemption from VAT and customs duty,
income tax holiday, provision of infrastructure, and subsidized water costs), the iron
ore pelletizing plant proposed for SIP may be economically feasible.
Under Base Case assumptions, the expected economics of proposed copper smelter
may only be marginal, even with GoM provided infrastructure and tax incentives.
Significant improvement in revenue assumptions and/or reduction in capital cost
may be required to improve project economics sufficiently to attract private
investment.
Of all the industrial plants proposed for SIP, the DRI/HBI plant is expected to have
the least favorable economics. According to our analysis, the DRI/HBI plant is not
expected to be economically feasible unless it can procure syngas at less than US$3
per MMBtu (2011 US$).
Economics of the industrial plants at the alternate sites are not expected to be
significantly different from those at SIP, provided that the GoM provides the same
level of infrastructure support.
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
11-4
Finalize and approve the scope of SIP Based on the analyses conducted in this
study, and evaluation of other factors outside of the scope of this study (some
suggestions are included in Section 11.18.2), the GoM should make an appropriate
decision regarding SIP, including determining the industrial plants that will be
developed.
Develop a plan to finance and implement infrastructure and utilities Given the
importance of government-sponsored infrastructure and utilities to the economic
feasibility of most of the proposed industrial plants, the GoM should develop a plan
to finance and implement these projects. While not studied as part of this economic
analysis, the same would be true of outside the park infrastructure required to
support operations of SIP. As discussed in Section 12, expediting implementation of
these projects would also signal the GoMs commitment to the development of SIP,
which may in turn enhance potential investors confidence in investing in SIP.
Develop the legal framework for government incentives The GoM should start
developing a legal framework that enables it to negotiate and grant incentives to
attract private investment to SIP, on a project-by-project basis.
Iron plant for the Mongolian market If the GoM remains committed to developing
downstream iron and steel making capabilities in Mongolia, the GoM is advised to
evaluate the technical and economic feasibility of alternative technologies that may
be more feasible for the estimated size of the Mongolian market.
Engage advisors While the economic analyses in this section provide indicative
estimates of project economics, the attractiveness of the proposed industrial plants
to potential investors is best determined by discussing the SIP project with potential
investors. This effort is best accomplished with the assistance of an experienced
commercial advisor, working in coordination with other legal and technical advisors
under direction of the GoM.
Refine economic analysis The economic analysis may be refined at a later stage
to replace generic assumptions with specific assumptions reflecting technology
vendor choice, negotiated commercial and financing terms, and owner-specific tax
situations and return requirements.
11.2.
Sainshand Industrial Park (SIP) will be located on a largely undeveloped site with limited
connecting transportation infrastructure or utilities. As proposed, the park consists of
industrial plants (coke plant, iron ore pelletizing plant, DRI/HBI plant, coal gasification plant,
copper smelter, cement plant, and power plant), common facilities/infrastructure (graded
site, materials handling facilities, transportation infrastructure, interconnecting piping, and
telecommunications), and utilities (air separation unit and water treatment facilities). The
economic analysis assumed, initially, that SIP would recover the costs of all supporting
infrastructure and utilities through charges to those industrial plants that will sell their
production in the Mongolian and international markets and would not require government
capital or operating subsidies, although the Government of Mongolia (GoM) may need to
consider guarantees or other credit support.
The analysis assumed that the coke plant, iron ore pelletizing plant, DRI/HBI plant, copper
smelter, and cement plant would sell all of their products at prevailing market prices in
domestic or export markets. The coal gasification plant and power plant would supply all of
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
11-5
11.3.
Bechtel developed a Microsoft Excel (Excel) Economic Model to evaluate the economic
feasibility of SIP on a preliminary basis. As shown in Figure 11.1, the Economic Model is
composed of seven Industrial Plant Modules, two Utility Modules and one Common
Facilities Module. In addition to analyzing the economics of the proposed industrial plants at
SIP, where utilities and infrastructure were assumed to be shared, the Economic Model was
also used to analyze the economic feasibility of most of the proposed industrial plants at
specified alternate locations on a stand-alone basis. Except for the coal gasification plant
and the power plant, which were designed to sell their entire output within SIP, all industrial
plants were evaluated based on forecasted cash flows over their 30-year economic life,
taking into account forecasted product prices, estimated operating and capital costs, and
other operating and financing cash flows, using standard financial metrics such as
unleveraged internal rate of return (IRR), net present value (NPV), and payback period. As
in similar preliminary economic assessments that Bechtel has conducted on proposed
industrial projects around the world, Bechtel evaluated economic feasibility by comparing
these standard financial metrics against industry norms, on the assumption that SIP will be
competing against similar investment opportunities in other countries on investment merit
alone. It is possible, for example, that an investment with below market expected returns
may attract foreign investment, due to strategic / geopolitical considerations such
assessments are beyond the scope of this study.
To evaluate the economic feasibility of the coal gasification plant and power plant as captive
suppliers to other industrial plants in the park, the Economic Model used the goal seek
function in Excel to solve for the prices of their products (syngas, electric power, and steam)
required to achieve a reasonable return on the cost of capital, at 10-12% IRR corresponding
to about 15% after-tax ROE. Where possible, these prices were then compared against
forecasted delivered prices of comparable products from sources outside Sainshand to
confirm their reasonableness ideally, the product price determined by the Economic Model
should be in line with the expected market price of the same product delivered to the
Sainshand site from the most competitive alternate source.
11-6
Modules
Seek product price based
on required return
Utility
Modules
Common
Facilities
Module
Air
Separation
Unit
Common
Facilities
Water
Utilities
(materials
handling, rail,
roads, piping,
telecoms, etc.)
Coke Plant
Iron Ore
Pelletizing
Plant
Cement Plant
DRI/HBI Plant
Coal
Gasification
Plant
Copper
Smelter
Power Plant
11-7
Common
Facilities
Water
Utilities
Power Plant
Coke Plant
Iron Ore
Pelletizing
Plant
To all plants
Coal
Gasification
Plant
Modules
Seek product price based
on required return
DRI/HBI Plant
Air
Separation
Unit
Copper
Smelter
Cement Plant
Syngas Price
Water Price
11-8
Common
Facilities
Power Plant
Water
Utilities
Coal
Gasification
Plant
Air
Separation
Unit
The process repeats until all plants have achieved required rates of
return within acceptable tolerances.
Water Price
Financial metrics based on US$ denominated nominal cash flows (described further
in Section 11.3.2) may be more easily interpreted by international investors and
financial institutions.
Financing terms (e.g., interest rates) are typically expressed on a nominal basis, and
raising US$ denominated debt is not unreasonable, because a large portion of cash
flows associated with most plants (e.g., capital cost, product sales revenue,
feedstock cost) will likely be denominated in US$.
The Economic Model was structured to compute cash flows on a monthly basis during the
construction period and on an annual basis during the operations period. Prices and costs
during the operations period were assumed to represent nominal prices at mid-year.
11.3.1. ANALYTICAL APPROACH
Economic analyses of all plants were based upon forecasted after-tax, nominal cash flows
to an international investor over an assumed economic life of 30 years. At this master plan
study phase, it is difficult to specify the countries of domicile of potential investors in the
industrial plants. For this reason, the Economic Model used generic tax and depreciation
assumptions to estimate returns after Mongolian and foreign taxes for a typical hypothetical
international investor, without taking into account specific tax circumstances of any particular
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
11-9
Revenues
Operating costs (excluding non-cash costs such as depreciation and amortization)
Increase in working capital
Income taxes
Capital costs
Unleveraged project cash flow
According to the Capital Asset Pricing Model 2, as a general rule, investment in a project
may be justified if the expected IRR exceeds investors required rate of return, taking into
account risks specific to the investment that cannot be eliminated by investing in a
diversified market portfolio.
Generally speaking, investors in a project may improve their expected equity return if they
can borrow at an interest rate below the unleveraged after-tax IRR. Therefore, for projects
with an expected unleveraged after-tax IRR above the cost of debt (approximately 5.5%, as
described in Section 11.4.9 below), the Economic Model also calculated the leveraged aftertax returns on equity (ROE), which were calculated as the internal rate of return of year-byyear cash flows to equity investors (revenues less the sum of operating costs, increases in
working capital, debt service, income taxes, and equity investment during construction):
The Capital Asset Pricing Model, introduced by William Sharpe, John Lintner, and Jack Treynor in
the mid-1960s, theorizes that investors expected return on an investment should be proportional to:
the sensitivity of the return on the investment relative to the return of the market portfolio, expressed
as a coefficient called beta; and the difference between the expected return on the market portfolio
and the risk-free rate of return known as the market risk premium.
11-10
Revenues
Operating costs (excluding non-cash costs such as depreciation and amortization)
Increase in working capital
Debt service (interest and principal repayment)
Income taxes
Equity investment during construction
Cash flow to equity
Project investments may also be evaluated by discounting the nominal cash flows to
calculate a net present value (NPV), using an appropriate risk-adjusted discount rate.
Projects with higher NPVs are generally preferred to those with lower NPVs. Nevertheless,
projects with a negative NPV, which may not be justified on a simple cash flow basis, may
be justified, under certain circumstances, on other grounds, such as strategic value or option
value.
According to the Capital Asset Pricing Model, the discount rate used to calculate NPV
associated with a project investment should reflect the risk-free cost of capital and an
adjustment to compensate the investor for risks that cannot be eliminated through portfolio
diversification. At this master plan study stage, the Economic Model assumed a 12%
discount rate to discount unleveraged project cash flows, except for projects that were
expected to be government-owned. This assumption is based on the approximate discount
rate of 10% that Bechtel typically uses in similar preliminary economic assessments based
on unleveraged US$ cash flows before adjustment for country risk, plus an assumed 2%
premium for Mongolia country risk (assuming continuing improvement in Mongolias
sovereign/political risk profile over the next couple years). Because different individual
investors may have different assessment of country risk (for example, Mongolian investors
may perceive the risk of investing in their home country differently than foreign investors
would), discount rate assumptions should be reviewed and updated as the risk profiles of
the projects change, and as the identity of the investors is known. As is customary in
investment appraisals, NPVs in the Economic Model were calculated as of the date of
financial close (which serves as a proxy for the date of final investment decision by potential
investors) in other words, all future cash flows in the model were discounted back to the
financial close date of each project.
Payback period can be helpful in providing a measure of the initial profitability and time
exposure risk of an investment. However, because it does not recognize the time value of
money or the value of cash flows beyond the payback period, this methodology may not
always indicate the preferred alternative as a standalone criterion.
11.3.3. UTILITIES AND COMMON FACILITIES
Bechtels Economic Model also includes Utility Modules that calculate net cash flows
associated with constructing, operating and maintaining common utility infrastructure at SIP.
Based on the expected annual output (i.e., the aggregate demand for the output from these
utilities by all industrial plants at SIP), these modules calculated unit prices to recover the
capital and operating costs associated with supplying utilities such as water, nitrogen, and
oxygen to the industrial plants, plus a required after-tax return over 30 years. By charging
unit prices for utilities, the Utility Modules allocated the capital and operating costs of
common utility infrastructure to each plant based on its expected usage.
The required returns assumed in the Utility Modules were consistent with proposed
ownership models described in Section 12:
11-11
Air Separation Unit (ASU) was assumed to be privately owned and financed, with an
unleveraged after-tax IRR in the range of 10-12% and a required after-tax ROE (if
project financed) of about 15% 3
Water Utilities were assumed to be owned by the GoM and financed 100% through
the government budget or sovereign borrowing, with cost of capital of 6%, which is in
line with the GoMs long-term cost of capital 4
Utility
Cost Allocation
Basis
Output of Utility
Module
Tax Rate
Debt Ratio
Required
After-Tax IRR
or ROE
Air
Separation
Unit
Usage of oxygen
and nitrogen
10%-25%
70%
10-12% (IRR)
15% (ROE)
Water Utilities
Usage of industrial
water
0%
0%
6%
Material Handling
Facilities
Interconnecting Piping
Telecommunications
Site Infrastructure
Bechtel did not approach potential investors to survey their required ROE as part of this study; 15%
is a preliminary ROE assumption based on return expectations in infrastructure investments in
developed countries, plus an assumed country risk premium for Mongolia.
4
In March 2012, the Development Bank of Mongolia issued $580 million of 5-year US$ denominated
notes backed by Mongolias BB- sovereign rating at a 5.75% yield.
11-12
11.4.
This section describes general assumptions that were applied universally to the Base Case
economic analyses of all industrial plants and utilities at the Sainshand and alternate
locations. Assumptions unique to a specific plant or utility are described in the relevant
sections 11.5 to 11.13.
11.4.1. MACROECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS
NDIC provided long-range forecasts of Mongolian inflation as well as exchange rates
between the MNT and major international and regional currencies. These assumptions are
tabulated in Table 11.5.
Because of the relatively small share of Mongolian costs in the overall capital and operating costs of
the projects, the economic analysis results are not expected to change significantly if purchasing
power parity adjustments were made to the exchange rate forecasts.
6
Published by the National Statistical Office of Mongolia in 2011
11-14
2012
9.1%
10.2%
1,344
1,709
1,344
214.6
17.3
2013
7.6%
10.4%
1,323
1,741
1,297
218.7
15.8
2014
8.0%
11.0%
1,307
1,693
1,331
224.3
15.6
2015
9.4%
12.5%
1,288
1,662
1,323
228.8
15.3
2016
7.0%
8.6%
1,277
1,648
1,319
231.6
15.2
2017
6.0%
9.6%
1,259
1,628
1,305
235.3
15.0
2018
5.0%
7.4%
1,000
1,220
1,000
187.0
12.0
2019-2025 2026-2050
5.0%
4.0%
7.2%-7.8% 7.9%-8.2%
1,000
1,000
1,220
1,220
1,000
1,000
187.0
187.0
12.0
12.0
11-15
Border price plus freight method where border prices were available for
commodities imported to Mongolia, the price at the plant location was determined by
adding freight costs to forecasted prices at the Chinese/Russian border.
It should be noted that transportation costs used in the estimating process described above
assumed import/export through the shortest and most direct route, in most cases through
northern China. However, the same forecast prices might be applicable for the longer rail
shipment route through Russia and the Russian Far East seaports if the transportation costs
are comparable, either due to lower cost per tonne per km or negotiated discounts on freight
rates.
11-16
Unit
NominalUS$
Case
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
SainshandIndustrialPark
Thermalcoal
DeliveredSainshand
$/MMBtu
Base
Low
High
3.62
2.32
5.29
3.61
2.31
5.27
3.65
2.34
5.33
3.72
2.38
5.43
3.79
2.43
5.54
3.88
2.48
5.66
3.97
2.54
5.80
4.07
2.60
5.94
4.17
2.67
6.09
4.27
2.74
6.24
4.38
2.80
6.40
4.49
2.87
6.55
4.61
2.95
6.73
4.73
3.03
6.90
4.85
3.11
7.08
4.98
3.19
7.27
5.12
3.27
7.47
5.24
3.35
7.65
5.37
3.44
7.84
Cokingcoal
DeliveredSainshand
$/tonne
Base
Low
High
160
102
233
161
103
236
163
104
238
164
105
240
166
106
242
168
107
245
166
106
242
167
107
244
170
109
249
174
112
254
179
114
261
183
117
267
187
120
274
192
123
280
197
126
287
202
129
294
207
132
302
212
136
309
217
139
317
Metallurgicalcoke
exWorksSainshand
$/tonne
Base
Low
High
398
255
582
405
259
591
411
263
600
417
267
609
424
271
619
430
275
628
436
279
637
440
282
642
448
287
655
459
294
670
470
301
686
481
308
702
493
315
719
505
323
737
517
331
755
530
339
774
543
348
793
556
356
812
570
365
832
FeOreconcentrate
DeliveredSainshand
$/tonne
Base
Low
High
146
104
196
124
88
167
101
72
136
88
62
118
79
57
107
75
53
101
73
52
98
72
51
97
72
51
97
73
52
98
74
53
100
76
54
102
77
55
104
79
56
106
81
58
109
83
59
111
85
60
114
87
62
117
89
63
120
FeOrepellets
DeliveredSainshand
exworksSainshand
$/tonne
Base
Low
High
184
131
247
160
114
215
136
97
183
122
87
164
114
81
153
110
78
147
108
77
145
108
77
145
109
78
146
111
79
149
113
80
152
115
82
155
118
84
158
121
86
162
124
88
166
127
90
170
130
93
175
133
95
179
137
97
184
HBI
DeliveredSainshand
$/tonne
Base
Low
High
434
309
584
378
269
508
320
228
430
285
203
383
265
189
357
255
182
343
250
178
336
250
178
336
252
179
338
255
182
343
260
185
350
266
189
357
272
194
366
279
199
376
287
204
386
295
210
396
302
215
407
310
221
417
319
227
428
Silica
DeliveredSainshand
$/tonne
Base
Low
High
30
21
40
31
22
42
33
23
44
34
24
46
35
25
47
37
26
49
38
27
52
40
29
54
42
30
56
44
31
59
46
33
62
48
34
64
50
36
67
52
37
70
54
39
73
57
40
76
59
42
79
62
44
83
64
46
86
Dolomite
DeliveredSainshand
$/tonne
Base
Low
High
121
86
162
123
88
166
127
90
171
132
94
177
137
97
184
142
101
191
148
106
199
155
110
208
162
115
217
169
120
227
176
126
237
184
131
248
192
137
258
200
142
268
208
148
279
216
154
290
225
160
302
234
167
315
244
174
328
Bentonite
DeliveredSainshand
$/tonne
Base
Low
High
211
150
283
216
154
291
224
159
301
233
166
313
243
173
327
254
181
341
265
189
357
277
197
373
290
206
389
303
216
407
316
225
425
331
235
444
345
245
463
359
255
482
373
266
502
389
277
523
405
288
544
422
300
567
440
313
591
Lime
DeliveredSainshand
$/tonne
Base
Low
High
103
74
139
106
75
142
109
77
146
112
80
151
116
83
157
121
86
163
126
90
170
132
94
177
138
98
185
144
102
193
150
107
202
157
111
210
163
116
219
169
121
228
176
125
237
183
130
246
191
136
256
199
141
267
207
147
278
CopperCathode
LMEcashprice
$/tonne
Base
Low
High
9,400
6,693
12,634
9,200
6,550
12,365
7,950
5,660
10,685
6,781
4,828
9,113
5,965
4,247
8,017
6,115
4,354
8,219
6,265
4,461
8,420
6,418
4,570
8,626
6,575
4,682
8,837
6,738
4,797
9,056
6,905
4,916
9,280
7,077
5,039
9,511
7,248
5,160
9,741
7,424
5,286
9,977
7,604
5,414
10,220
7,790
5,547
10,470
7,981
5,683
10,727
8,178
5,822
10,991
8,380
5,966
11,262
TreatmentCharge(TC)
Globalprice
$/tonne
Base
Low
High
109
78
147
107
76
143
92
66
124
79
56
106
69
49
93
71
51
95
73
52
98
74
53
100
76
54
103
78
56
105
80
57
108
82
58
110
84
60
113
86
61
116
88
63
119
90
64
121
93
66
124
95
68
127
97
69
131
RefiningCharge(RC)
Globalprice
$/tonne
Base
Low
High
72
51
97
71
50
95
61
44
82
52
37
70
46
33
62
47
33
63
48
34
65
49
35
66
51
36
68
52
37
70
53
38
71
54
39
73
56
40
75
57
41
77
58
42
79
60
43
80
61
44
82
63
45
84
64
46
87
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
11-17
Unit
NominalUS$
Case
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
SainshandIndustrialPark
Thermalcoal
DeliveredSainshand
$/MMBtu
Base
Low
High
5.50
3.52
8.03
5.64
3.61
8.23
5.76
3.68
8.41
5.88
3.76
8.59
6.01
3.84
8.77
6.14
3.93
8.96
6.27
4.01
9.15
6.40
4.10
9.35
6.54
4.19
9.55
6.68
4.28
9.75
6.83
4.37
9.97
6.97
4.46
10.18
7.10
4.54
10.36
7.22
4.62
10.54
7.35
4.70
10.73
7.48
4.79
10.92
7.61
4.87
11.11
Cokingcoal
DeliveredSainshand
$/tonne
Base
Low
High
223
143
326
229
146
334
235
150
343
241
154
352
247
158
361
253
162
370
260
166
379
266
170
388
272
174
397
278
178
406
285
182
416
292
187
426
298
191
435
305
195
445
311
199
454
317
203
463
323
207
472
Metallurgicalcoke
exWorksSainshand
$/tonne
Base
Low
High
584
373
852
598
383
873
612
392
894
627
401
915
642
411
937
658
421
960
673
431
983
690
442
1007
707
452
1032
724
463
1057
742
475
1083
760
486
1109
778
498
1136
797
510
1164
817
523
1193
837
536
1222
857
549
1252
FeOreconcentrate
DeliveredSainshand
$/tonne
Base
Low
High
91
65
123
94
67
126
96
68
129
98
70
132
100
71
134
102
73
137
105
74
140
107
76
144
109
78
147
112
80
150
115
82
154
117
83
157
120
85
161
122
87
164
125
89
167
127
90
171
130
92
174
FeOrepellets
DeliveredSainshand
exworksSainshand
$/tonne
Base
Low
High
140
100
188
144
102
193
147
105
198
151
107
203
154
110
207
158
113
212
162
115
217
166
118
223
170
121
228
174
124
234
178
127
239
182
130
245
186
133
251
191
136
256
194
138
261
198
141
267
202
144
272
HBI
DeliveredSainshand
$/tonne
Base
Low
High
327
233
440
336
239
451
344
245
462
352
251
474
361
257
485
370
263
497
377
268
506
384
273
516
391
278
526
399
284
536
406
289
546
409
291
550
413
294
554
416
296
559
419
298
563
422
301
568
426
303
572
Silica
DeliveredSainshand
$/tonne
Base
Low
High
67
48
90
70
50
94
73
52
98
76
54
102
79
56
106
82
59
111
86
61
115
89
64
120
93
66
125
96
69
130
100
71
135
104
74
140
108
77
145
112
80
150
116
83
156
120
86
162
125
89
168
Dolomite
DeliveredSainshand
$/tonne
Base
Low
High
254
181
342
265
188
356
276
196
371
287
204
386
299
213
402
312
222
419
325
231
436
337
240
453
350
249
471
364
259
489
378
269
508
392
279
527
406
289
546
421
300
566
436
310
586
452
322
607
468
333
629
Bentonite
DeliveredSainshand
$/tonne
Base
Low
High
458
326
616
477
340
642
497
354
669
518
369
697
540
384
726
563
401
756
586
417
788
609
434
819
633
451
851
658
469
884
683
487
918
709
505
953
735
524
988
762
543
1024
790
562
1062
819
583
1100
848
604
1140
Lime
DeliveredSainshand
$/tonne
Base
Low
High
215
153
289
224
160
301
234
166
314
243
173
327
253
180
341
264
188
355
275
196
369
286
203
384
297
211
399
308
219
414
320
228
430
332
236
446
344
245
462
356
254
479
369
263
496
382
272
513
396
282
532
CopperCathode
LMEcashprice
$/tonne
Base
Low
High
8,587
6,114
11,542
8,801
6,266
11,829
9,021
6,423
12,124
9,247
6,584
12,428
9,480
6,750
12,741
9,720
6,920
13,063
9,966
7,096
13,394
10,220
7,277
13,736
10,481
7,463
14,087
10,750
7,654
14,448
11,027
7,851
14,820
11,312
8,054
15,204
11,606
8,264
15,599
11,909
8,479
16,005
12,221
8,701
16,424
12,542
8,930
16,856
12,873
9,165
17,301
TreatmentCharge(TC)
Globalprice
$/tonne
Base
Low
High
100
71
134
102
73
137
105
75
141
107
76
144
110
78
148
113
80
152
116
82
155
119
84
159
122
87
163
125
89
168
128
91
172
131
93
176
135
96
181
138
98
186
142
101
191
145
104
196
149
106
201
RefiningCharge(RC)
Globalprice
$/tonne
Base
Low
High
66
47
89
68
48
91
69
49
93
71
51
96
73
52
98
75
53
100
77
55
103
79
56
106
81
57
108
83
59
111
85
60
114
87
62
117
89
64
120
92
65
123
94
67
126
96
69
130
99
70
133
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
11-18
Unit
Case
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
Gold
London(globalprice)
$/oz
Base
Low
High
1,183
842
1,590
1,175
837
1,580
1,186
844
1,593
1,205
858
1,620
1,229
875
1,652
1,257
895
1,689
1,289
918
1,733
1,319
939
1,772
1,349
961
1,813
1,381
983
1,856
1,413
1,006
1,899
1,446
1,030
1,944
1,480
1,054
1,989
1,515
1,079
2,036
1,550
1,104
2,084
1,587
1,130
2,133
1,624
1,156
2,183
1,662
1,184
2,234
1,701
1,211
2,287
Silver
London(globalprice)
$/oz
Base
Low
High
14
10
19
14
10
19
15
10
20
15
11
20
16
11
21
16
12
22
17
12
23
17
12
23
18
13
24
18
13
25
19
14
26
20
14
26
20
14
27
21
15
28
22
15
29
22
16
30
23
16
31
24
17
32
24
17
33
Sulfuricacid
exWorksSainshand
$/tonne
Base
Low
High
4
0
34
0
0
18
0
0
18
0
0
14
0
0
5
0
0
2
5
0
39
22
0
63
33
0
79
41
0
90
45
2
97
49
4
103
52
6
108
55
7
113
58
8
118
61
10
122
65
12
128
68
13
134
71
14
139
Diesel
DeliveredSainshand
$/liter
Base
Low
High
0.95
0.61
1.39
0.96
0.61
1.40
0.98
0.63
1.43
1.01
0.65
1.47
1.05
0.67
1.53
1.08
0.69
1.58
1.12
0.72
1.64
1.16
0.74
1.70
1.20
0.77
1.76
1.25
0.80
1.82
1.29
0.83
1.89
1.34
0.86
1.95
1.38
0.89
2.02
1.43
0.92
2.09
1.48
0.95
2.16
1.53
0.98
2.23
1.58
1.01
2.31
1.63
1.05
2.39
1.69
1.08
2.47
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
11-19
Unit
Case
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
Gold
London(globalprice)
$/oz
Base
Low
High
1,741
1,240
2,340
1,782
1,269
2,395
1,824
1,299
2,452
1,867
1,329
2,509
1,911
1,361
2,568
1,956
1,392
2,628
2,002
1,425
2,690
2,049
1,459
2,753
2,097
1,493
2,818
2,146
1,528
2,884
2,196
1,564
2,952
2,248
1,601
3,021
2,301
1,638
3,092
2,355
1,677
3,165
2,410
1,716
3,239
2,467
1,756
3,316
2,525
1,798
3,393
Silver
London(globalprice)
$/oz
Base
Low
High
25
18
34
26
18
35
27
19
36
27
20
37
28
20
38
29
21
39
30
21
40
31
22
41
32
23
43
33
23
44
34
24
45
35
25
47
36
25
48
37
26
50
38
27
51
39
28
53
40
29
54
Sulfuricacid
exWorksSainshand
$/tonne
Base
Low
High
75
15
145
78
17
152
82
18
158
86
19
165
90
21
172
94
22
179
98
24
187
102
26
194
107
27
202
111
29
209
116
31
218
120
32
225
124
34
233
129
35
241
133
37
249
137
38
256
142
39
264
Diesel
DeliveredSainshand
$/liter
Base
Low
High
1.75
1.12
2.55
1.81
1.16
2.64
1.87
1.19
2.73
1.93
1.23
2.82
1.99
1.28
2.91
2.06
1.32
3.01
2.13
1.36
3.11
2.20
1.41
3.21
2.27
1.45
3.31
2.34
1.50
3.42
2.42
1.55
3.53
2.49
1.59
3.64
2.57
1.64
3.75
2.64
1.69
3.86
2.72
1.74
3.98
2.81
1.80
4.10
2.89
1.85
4.22
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
11-20
Unit
Case
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
AlternateSiteTavanTolgoi
Metallurgicalcoke
TavanTologi
$/tonne
Base
Low
High
392
251
572
398
255
581
404
259
590
411
263
600
417
267
609
423
271
618
429
275
626
433
277
632
441
282
644
451
289
658
462
295
674
473
302
690
484
310
707
496
318
725
509
326
743
521
334
761
534
342
780
547
350
799
560
358
818
Cokingcoal
TavanTolgoi
$/tonne
Base
Low
High
153
98
224
155
99
226
156
100
228
158
101
230
159
102
232
161
103
235
159
102
232
160
102
233
163
104
238
167
107
243
171
109
249
175
112
255
179
115
261
183
117
268
188
120
275
193
123
281
198
126
288
203
130
296
208
133
303
exWorksOyuTolgoi
$/tonne
Base
Low
High
0.0
0.0
2.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
14.7
0.0
0.0
37.7
7.1
0.0
52.6
13.4
0.0
62.3
17.3
0.0
68.9
19.8
0.0
73.6
22.3
0.0
78.1
24.4
0.0
82.0
26.2
0.0
85.5
28.2
0.0
89.4
30.8
0.0
94.1
32.8
0.0
98.5
34.9
0.0
103.1
AlternateSiteOyuTolgoi
Sulfuricacid
TC,RC,Gold,Silver,CopperCathodeSameasSainshandLocation
AlternateSiteDarkhan
Ironoreconcentrate
DeliveredDarkhan
$/tonne
Base
Low
High
130
93
175
108
77
145
85
61
114
71
51
95
62
44
84
57
41
77
55
39
74
54
38
72
53
38
72
54
38
72
55
39
73
55
39
74
57
40
76
58
41
78
59
42
79
60
43
81
62
44
83
63
45
85
65
46
87
Ironorepellets
DeliveredDarkhan
orexworksDarkhan
$/tonne
Base
Low
High
168
120
226
144
103
194
120
85
161
105
75
141
97
69
130
92
66
124
90
64
121
90
64
120
90
64
121
91
65
123
93
66
125
95
68
128
97
69
131
99
71
134
102
73
137
104
74
140
107
76
144
110
78
148
113
80
151
HBI
exworksDarkhan
$/tonne
Base
Low
High
419
298
563
362
258
487
304
216
408
269
191
361
248
177
334
237
169
319
232
165
312
231
165
311
233
166
313
236
168
317
240
171
323
246
175
330
252
179
338
258
184
347
265
189
356
272
194
366
280
199
376
287
204
386
295
210
396
Dolomite
DeliveredDarkhan
$/tonne
Base
Low
High
136
97
183
139
99
187
143
102
193
148
106
199
154
109
207
160
114
215
166
118
224
173
123
233
181
129
243
188
134
253
196
140
264
205
146
275
213
151
286
221
157
297
230
163
308
238
170
320
248
176
333
258
184
346
268
191
360
Bentonite
DeliveredDarkhan
$/tonne
Base
Low
High
226
161
304
232
165
312
240
171
323
250
178
336
260
185
350
272
193
365
283
202
381
296
210
397
308
220
415
322
229
433
336
239
452
351
250
472
365
260
491
380
271
511
395
281
531
411
293
553
428
305
575
446
317
599
464
330
623
Lime
DeliveredDarkhan
$/tonne
Base
Low
High
119
85
160
121
86
163
125
89
168
129
92
173
134
95
179
138
99
186
144
103
194
150
107
202
156
111
210
163
116
219
170
121
228
177
126
238
184
131
247
191
136
256
198
141
266
206
146
276
214
152
287
222
158
298
231
164
310
Sulfur
exWorksDarkhan
$/t
Base
12
0
40
1
0
26
0
0
26
0
0
26
0
0
26
1
0
27
17
0
49
26
0
63
32
0
72
37
2
79
41
4
86
45
6
92
50
9
98
54
12
105
59
15
112
64
17
120
69
20
127
73
23
134
78
25
141
Low
High
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
11-21
Unit
Case
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
AlternateSiteTavanTolgoi
Metallurgicalcoke
TavanTologi
$/tonne
Base
Low
High
574
367
837
587
376
857
601
385
878
616
394
899
631
404
921
646
413
943
661
423
965
677
433
989
694
444
1013
710
455
1037
728
466
1062
745
477
1088
763
489
1115
782
501
1142
801
513
1170
821
525
1198
841
538
1228
Cokingcoal
TavanTolgoi
$/tonne
Base
Low
High
213
136
311
218
140
319
224
143
327
230
147
335
235
151
344
241
155
353
248
158
361
253
162
370
259
166
378
265
170
387
271
173
396
277
177
405
283
181
413
289
185
422
296
189
432
301
193
440
307
196
448
exWorksOyuTolgoi
$/tonne
Base
Low
High
37.1
0.0
108.0
39.5
0.0
113.0
41.9
0.0
118.3
44.5
0.0
123.8
47.2
0.0
129.5
50.1
0.0
135.5
53.1
0.0
141.7
55.8
0.0
147.6
58.7
0.0
153.7
61.7
0.0
160.0
65.0
0.0
166.8
67.7
0.0
172.8
71.0
0.0
179.6
74.7
0.0
186.8
77.6
0.0
193.1
80.7
0.0
199.6
83.8
0.0
206.3
AlternateSiteOyuTolgoi
Sulfuricacid
TC,RC,Gold,Silver,CopperCathodeSameasSainshandLocation
AlternateSiteDarkhan
Ironoreconcentrate
DeliveredDarkhan
$/tonne
Base
Low
High
67
47
89
68
49
92
70
50
94
71
51
96
73
52
98
74
53
100
76
54
102
78
55
104
79
56
107
81
58
109
83
59
111
85
60
114
86
61
116
88
63
118
90
64
120
91
65
123
93
66
125
Ironorepellets
DeliveredDarkhan
orexworksDarkhan
$/tonne
Base
Low
High
115
82
155
118
84
159
121
86
163
124
88
167
127
90
171
130
93
175
133
95
179
136
97
183
140
99
188
143
102
192
146
104
197
150
107
202
153
109
206
157
111
210
160
114
214
163
116
219
166
118
223
HBI
exworksDarkhan
$/tonne
Base
Low
High
302
215
406
310
221
417
318
226
427
326
232
438
334
238
448
342
243
459
348
248
468
354
252
476
361
257
485
368
262
494
374
267
503
377
268
507
379
270
510
382
272
513
384
274
516
387
275
520
389
277
523
Dolomite
DeliveredDarkhan
$/tonne
Base
Low
High
279
199
375
290
206
390
302
215
405
314
223
422
326
232
439
340
242
456
353
251
475
367
261
493
380
271
511
395
281
531
409
292
550
424
302
570
440
313
591
455
324
611
471
335
633
487
347
655
505
359
678
Bentonite
DeliveredDarkhan
$/tonne
Base
Low
High
483
344
649
503
358
676
523
373
703
545
388
732
567
404
762
591
421
794
615
438
826
639
455
858
663
472
891
689
491
926
715
509
961
741
528
996
769
547
1033
796
567
1070
825
587
1108
854
608
1148
885
630
1190
Lime
DeliveredDarkhan
$/tonne
Base
Low
High
240
171
323
250
178
336
260
185
349
270
192
363
281
200
377
292
208
392
304
216
408
315
224
423
327
233
439
339
241
456
352
250
472
364
259
489
377
268
507
390
278
524
404
287
543
418
297
562
432
308
581
Sulfur
exWorksDarkhan
$/t
Base
83
28
149
88
30
157
93
33
165
98
35
173
103
38
181
109
41
190
115
44
199
121
47
209
127
50
218
133
54
229
140
57
240
148
61
251
154
65
261
161
68
272
168
72
283
176
76
295
184
80
308
Low
High
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
11-22
572,200
337,500
369,000
To estimate expatriate labor cost at each plant, Bechtel subdivided the total expatriate
headcount provided in the table in Appendix 7A into three positions in the proposed
organizational hierarchy general manager, department head, and other expatriate staff
and applied the cost assumptions per person outlined in Table 11.8 below.
Position
Annual Salary
( in 2011 US$)
Benefits as Percentage of
Salary (%)
General Manager
$200,000
50%
Department Head
$125,000
40%
$90,000
30%
11-23
Total Expatriates
(Appendix 7A)
General
Manager
Department
Head
Other
Expatriates
Total Expatriate
Labor Cost
(2011 US$)
3,574,000
Cement Plant
27
22
30
25
3,925,000
DRI/HBI Plant
14
2,053,000
Coke Plant
27
22
3,574,000
Power Plant
17
12
2,404,000
13
1,936,000
92
84
11,353,000
Railway
10
1,527,000
Common Facilities
45
40
5,680,000
Total Sainshand
275
38
228
36,026,000
11-24
VAT was calculated as 10% of the total EPC cost plus customs duty minus freight
and insurance, consistent with the Law on Value Added Taxes in Mongolia (Law on
VAT).
For most plants, VAT and customs duty together amounted to about 11% of EPC cost,
based on the split among various components (e.g., equipment, insurance, direct labor, and
subcontracted services) of the EPC cost.
For income tax purposes, the Economic Model assumed that VAT and customs duty levied
on the EPC cost would be capitalized with other costs during construction and depreciated
along with tangible assets during the operations period.
11.4.7.2.OPERATIONS PERIOD
According to the Law on VAT, VAT rates on all exported finished products of the mining
industry are zero rated. Based on the definition of finished products of the mining
industry, the economic analyses assumed that the products of the coke plant, the DRI/HBI
plant, and the copper smelter would be exported at zero VAT rate. Following this
assumption, the economic analyses of these plants assumed that VAT paid for production
inputs (purchases) would be refunded, rather than added to operating costs of the plants.
This means that VAT does not have any impact on net cash flows at these three industrial
plants. To simplify the analysis, VAT payment and its subsequent refund were excluded
from the economic analyses of the three plants.
Due to the high freight cost to value ratio of cement, the economic analysis for the cement
plant assumed that its output would be sold domestically. For the economic analyses of the
cement plant, coal gasification plant, power plant, and the other utilities at Sainshand, VAT
was assumed to be added to the sales price of the final products and passed through to
customers, enabling the plants to recover VAT paid on their purchases (and collect VAT on
the value added portion on behalf of the Mongolian tax authorities). The Economic Model
simplified the analysis by excluding collection of VAT (on both the value of input and the
value added) from the revenues and payment of VAT from the operating costs of the
projects.
11.4.8. DEPRECIATION, INCOME TAX, AND WITHHOLDING TAX
As explained previously in Section 11.3.1, depreciation and tax assumptions used in the
Economic Model were intended to reflect the total impact of Mongolian and foreign taxes on
the after-tax returns to international investors. Because more than 30 countries, including
many countries in Europe and Asia, where potential investors will likely be based, have
signed double taxation agreements with Mongolia, the economic analysis assumed that
generic international investors would make their investments in SIP through holding
companies based in the Netherlands, a popular holding company jurisdiction for European
investors, and that dividends from the Mongolian projects to the Dutch holding companies
would be exempt from tax. (This holding company structure may be replicated for Asian
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
11-25
The corporate income tax rate is 10% on the first 3 billion MNT of taxable income,
and 25% on any taxable income above 3 billion MNT.
Tax losses are carried forward to up to 8 future years to offset future taxable income.
Dividends paid to the Dutch holding company are subject to a withholding tax of 10%
(reduced from 20% by treaty).
To calculate depreciation deductions for income tax purposes, the Economic Model adopted
the following depreciation schedules, per Mongolian tax law:
Financing fees were amortized over the life of the loans on a straight line basis.
It should be noted that, to the extent that any of the generic tax assumptions in the
Economic Model do not apply to certain potential investors, the attractiveness of the
investment to such investors would differ from the analysis results.
In particular, we note that the U.S. and Japan are two significant sources of potential foreign
direct investment that do not have tax treaties with Mongolia. Absent any tax treaties,
investors from those countries may face higher effective tax rates (due to taxes imposed by
their countries of domicile and the fact that there is no treaty reduction to the 20% Mongolian
dividend withholding tax) than was assumed in the Economic Model. However, this may be
offset by credits available in those countries for taxes paid in Mongolia.
At a later stage, when potential investors are identified, tax and depreciation assumptions
may be refined to more accurately evaluate the project investment from the investors point
of view.
11.4.9. FINANCING ASSUMPTIONS
As discussed in Section 11.3.1, Bechtel assumed generic international financing terms in
the Economic Model. These generic assumptions include:
Interest Rate: 275 basis points above LIBOR, or approximately 5.5% including the
cost of swap to a fixed interest rate
Buildings located within an industrial park are subject to a somewhat longer depreciation schedule
than production equipment (20 years as opposed to 3 years). For this master planning level of
analysis, the portion of buildings cost within the total EPC cost was assumed to be negligible.
11-26
Similar to other generic assumptions in this study, working capital assumptions should be
reviewed and updated to reflect payment terms negotiated between each industrial plant
and its suppliers and customers. Such refinements are beyond the scope of this study.
11.5.
COKE PLANT
11.5.1. ASSUMPTIONS
Sections 11.3 and 11.4 document the general assumptions that were applied universally to
all industrial plants, including the coke plant. This section describes assumptions that are
specific to the coke plant economic analysis.
Based on discussions with equipment and technology providers, Bechtel assumed annual
operating cost excluding labor, feedstock, and utilities of US$3.7 million (in 2011 US$),
escalated at the assumed general inflation rate of 2.5% per year. This includes the costs of
consumables, spares and replacement of parts estimated to total US$2.3 million.
Gypsum, a by-product of the flue gas desulfurization process at the coke plant, was
assumed to be marketed and sold at a price equivalent to the cost of its removal from the
plant, without any impact on project cash flows.
11.5.2. RESULTS
The calculated unleveraged after-tax IRR of the coke plant in the Base Case was in excess
of 15%. Allocation of annual infrastructure charges as described in Section 11.3.3. is not
expected to have a significant impact on the economics of the coke plant.
11-27
11.6.
11.6.1. ASSUMPTIONS
Sections 11.3 and 11.4 document the general assumptions that were applied universally to
all industrial plants, including the iron ore pelletizing plant. This section describes
assumptions that are specific to the iron ore pelletizing plant economic analysis.
In Bechtels view, the products of the iron ore pelletizing plant do not meet the definition of
finished products of the mining industry in the Mongolian Law on VAT to qualify for zero
rating for VAT purposes. Thus different VAT treatments are required for the portion of iron
ore pellets that is proposed to be directly exported (875 kTPA) versus the portion which is
proposed to be sold to the DRI/HBI plant at SIP (3,625 kTPA):
Exported Iron Ore Pellets Consistent with the Mongolian Law on VAT, the
analysis assumed that the export portion would be exempt from VAT. VAT paid by
the iron ore pelletizing plant for purchases of production inputs would not be
refunded, and the plant would not be able to collect VAT from foreign buyers of iron
ore pellets. The VAT paid for purchases was thus treated as a tax deductible
expense in the economic analysis.
Iron Ore Pellets Sold to DRI/HBI Plant On the other hand, the analysis assumed
that the portion of iron ore pellets proposed to be sold to the DRI/HBI plant at
Sainshand would be sold at the forecasted price plus VAT. This would enable any
VAT paid by the iron ore pellet plant in the purchase of production inputs to be
passed through to the buyer. Similar to the modeling approach adopted for the
DRI/HBI plant, VAT associated with this portion of output was excluded from both the
revenue and operating cost of the project.
Based on discussions with equipment and technology providers, Bechtel assumed annual
operating cost excluding labor, feedstock, and utilities of US$10.6 million (in 2011 US$),
escalated at the assumed general inflation rate of 2.5% per year. This includes the
expenses incurred during annual shutdowns for maintenance, estimated to total US$6.0
million.
11.6.2. RESULTS
The unleveraged after-tax IRR of the iron ore pelletizing plant was estimated to be 0.7%
before allocation of infrastructure charges was applied. According to the pro forma financial
statements developed based on the assumptions, imposing annual infrastructure charges is
expected to turn the project to cash flow negative on an annual basis, causing the otherwise
weak project economics to deteriorate further (IRR could not be calculated because of poor
economics).
11.7.
DRI/HBI PLANT
11.7.1. ASSUMPTIONS
Sections 11.3 and 11.4 document the general assumptions that were applied universally to
all industrial plants, including the DRI/HBI plant. This section describes assumptions that are
specific to the DRI/HBI Plant economic analysis.
A one-time licensing fee of US$8.75 million (2011 US$, escalated at 2.5% per year), based
on proposals received from technology providers, was assumed to be paid at
commissioning of the plant. This amount was capitalized and treated as a capital cost in the
Economic Model.
11-28
11.7.2. RESULTS
The analysis showed that, with Base Case assumptions, the DRI/HBI plant is expected to
run operating losses in excess of US$200 million before tax and payment of infrastructure
charges, because estimated annual operating revenues are not expected to cover estimated
annual operating costs. With such an unfavorable expected cash flow profile, calculations of
IRR, ROE, and payback period are not meaningful.
11.8.
COPPER SMELTER
11.8.1. ASSUMPTIONS
Please refer to Sections 11.3 and 11.4 for general assumptions that were applied universally
to all industrial plants. Assumptions specific to the copper smelter economic analysis are
documented below.
11.8.1.1.REVENUES
The economic analysis of the copper smelter assumed that the plant would operate as a
custom smelter, buying copper concentrate from the Oyu Tolgoi mine at market prices
(assumed to be the London Metal Exchange copper price) minus treatment charges and
refining charges, and deductions for copper, gold, and silver content in the concentrate.
Deductions allow the smelter the opportunity to profit from recovering and selling a portion of
the copper and precious metal content (represented by the deductions) at prevailing market
prices per standard industry practice. Specific assumptions used to estimate the various
revenue streams under this commercial arrangement are described below.
Treatment and Refining Charges
Typically, the primary sources of revenue for copper smelters and refineries are treatment
charges (TC) and refining charges (RC) negotiated with suppliers of copper concentrate.
Much like copper prices, TC/RC have exhibited significant historical volatility, depending in
large part on the balance between supply of copper concentrate and demand for refined
copper, as well as the availability of smelting/refining capacity in the global market. Per
Bechtels understanding, even copper smelters that have entered into long-term concentrate
supply contracts generally cannot negotiate fixed TC/RC terms in their contracts over a
multi-year period.
According to CRU, TC are expected to average about 4% of the London Metal Exchange
(LME) copper price over the long term, while RC for copper are expected to average 2.65%
of the LME copper price. These assumptions, together with CRUs forecast of LME copper
price, were used to forecast TC and RC for copper on an annual basis (in US$ per dry
metric tonne of copper concentrate) over the assumed economic life of the copper smelter.
RC revenue for gold was calculated separately at US$6 per ounce of payable gold (gold
content minus deductions for gold, as described in the following section); similarly, RC
revenue for silver was calculated separately at US$0.50 per ounce of payable silver. Both
RC assumptions are typical for the industry according to CRU, and are assumed to be
escalated at 2.5% inflation per year.
11-29
There may not be sufficient domestic demand for the 925 kTPA sulfuric acid produced by the
copper smelter; consequently, the sulfuric acid price assumed in the Economic Model was based on
the assumption that the sulfuric acid would be exported to China.
11-30
11.9.
11.9.1. ASSUMPTIONS
Section 11.4 documents the general assumptions that were applied universally to all
industrial plants, including the coal gasification plant. This section describes assumptions
that are specific to the coal gasification plant economic analysis.
As discussed in Section 11.3, the Coal Gasification Module of the Economic Model solved
for a syngas price (in 2011 US$, escalated at 2.5% inflation per year) that would enable the
project to achieve a required after-tax IRR of 10-12%, corresponding to an ROE of 15% if
project-financed. Syngas sold to the DRI/HBI Plant as reducing gas was assumed to be
priced the same as syngas sold to other industrial plants at SIP as fuel gas.
Revenue from sale of sulfuric acid produced as a by-product of the coal gasification plant
was calculated using forecasted prices in China adjusted for freight to the Sainshand
location, as discussed in Section 11.8.1.1.
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
11-31
CEMENT PRICE
Unlike pricing assumptions for other industrial plants, which were developed with the
assistance of a market consultant, the price forecast of cement was developed by
comparing the current domestic price of US$134 per tonne (excluding VAT) provided by
NDIC with (i) the forecasted delivered price of alternative sources of cement from across the
border in China and (ii) the forecasted benchmark cement price in major international
market such as the U.S.
Bechtel understands that the price of cement in Mongolia is high in comparison with prices
in the U.S. or China because domestic production has yet to catch up with rising demand as
a result of rapid growth in economic and construction activity in recent years. According to
Bechtels research 10, the cement price across the border in Inner Mongolia, China has been
steady at about US$70/tonne over the last three years and, should Chinas domestic
demand slow down, Chinese imports could relieve price pressure in Mongolia. To develop a
reference price of imported cement from Inner Mongolia, Bechtel developed a forecast of
the delivered price of cement based on a 3.5% annual escalation in the China cement price,
a 2.5% annual escalation in transportation cost, and assuming the 5% customs duty on
imports to remain unchanged over the forecast horizon.
The Base Case cement price forecast assumed that the price would stay flat at the current
US$134/tonne level until 2022, when it is expected to be at parity with the estimated
delivered price of imported Chinese cement from Inner Mongolia. Thereafter, cement price
was assumed to increase at 2.5% annually.
As shown in Figure 11.4, Bechtel developed cement price sensitivities on either side of the
Base Case as follows:
9
Since early 2012, natural gas price at Henry Hub has been trading below US$3/MMBtu.
J.P. Morgan equity research report on cement industry in China titled Greater China Hard Hat
2012: Whats next after credit tightening and supplier discipline?, dated October 14, 2011.
10
11-32
For the high case, assume cement price to increase at 2.5% annually from
US$134/tonne in 2012.
For the low case, assume that the price premium of Mongolian cement over the
delivered price of imported Chinese cement to decline linearly over 5 years between
2013 and 2017. After 2017, cement price was assumed to increase at 2.5%
annually.
US$/tonne
400
350
250
200
150
100
50
0
2012
2017
2022
2027
2032
2037
2042
2047
Source: Bechtel estimates, based on 2011 Mongolia price data provided by NDIC and China price
data from J.P. Morgan research
Figure 11.4
11.10.1.2.
OPERATING COSTS
The basis for operating cost assumptions was the FL Smidth Feasibility Study Report 11
(FLS Report) that Bechtel relied upon as a source of information for this study. Due to the
proximity of the proposed location of the cement plant in the FLS Report (the Sugdukh
limestone deposit) to Sainshand (45 km to the southeast) and its comparable capacity (1
MPTA, same as the proposed cement plant in this study), Bechtel considered the operating
cost assumptions in the FLS Report applicable to the economic analysis. Consequently,
Bechtel applied the variable operating cost assumptions from the FLS Report in the
economic analysis of the cement plant, with one exception to maintain consistency of
assumptions across the economic analyses of all industrial plants at Sainshand, CRUs
forecast of thermal coal delivered prices at Sainshand was used.
Operating costs other than the costs of feedstock and utilities were estimated as follows:
11
Feasibility Study for a 1.0 MTPA Cement Plant, FL Smidth for Yalgun International Mongolia
11-33
Routine O&M (excluding labor) was assumed to be US$2.5 million (2011 US$) per
year, escalated at 2.5% inflation annually.
Other variable operating cost was assumed to be US$10 per tonne of cement
produced.
Although the results of the FLS Report have been used for this Master Plan Study Report,
Bechtel has not independently confirmed the assumptions sourced from the FLS Report.
11.10.2. RESULTS
Based on these assumptions, the calculated unleveraged after-tax IRR of the cement plant
is 6.5% before allocation of annual infrastructure charges are included. According to the pro
forma financial statements developed for the cement plant, imposing infrastructure charges
as discussed in Section 11.3.3 is expected to turn the operating cash flows of the cement
plant from positive to negative on an annual basis, significantly hurting project economics.
Step 1 The Economic Model solved for a price of power to achieve the required
return in a hypothetical scenario assuming no steam input from the industrial plants
and the price of outgoing steam to be set at zero. (In this step, the analysis assumed
the capital cost of a hypothetical plant with a larger boiler than is proposed for SIP to
supply the load at SIP using only syngas as fuel). The initial syngas price and water
price used were estimates that would be improved through subsequent iterative
calculations as described in Step 4 below.
11-34
Syngas Price
Water Price
(from Utilities)
Power Price
(to all plants)
Power Plant
(syngas, no
steam)
Step 2 The Model was re-run with the incoming steam flows to the power plant
included and estimated capital cost developed in Section 10 restored, but with the
price of outgoing steam set at zero, to solve for a price that the Power Plant would
be willing to pay for the incoming steam (in US$ per MMBtu of heat content) in lieu of
purchasing syngas for power generation, while charging the same price for power
determined in the first step. Different streams of steam flow to the power plant (e.g.,
100 bar steam from Coke Plant, 60 bar and 15 bar steam from Copper Smelter)
were assigned different prices based on their heat content relative to one another.
Power Plant
(syngas +
steam in)
Coal
Gasification
Plant
Power Price
Oxygen Price
Water Price
Nitrogen Price
(from Utilities)
(from ASU)
Steam Price
Coal
Gasification
Plant
Step 3 The steam price per MMBtu for incoming steam calculated from Step 2 was
used to replace the outgoing steam price, which had been set at zero in previous
steps. With the additional revenue from the steam sale properly reflected in the
Economic Model, the power plants after-tax IRR and ROE would be higher than the
required 10-12% and 15%, respectively. Therefore, the power price was recalculated
to restore the required 10-12% IRR and 15% ROE.
Power Plant
(syngas + steam
in & out)
Coal
Gasification
Plant
Steam Price
(to Industrial
Plants)
Step 4 The power price and steam prices determined from the previous step were
used as inputs in the Coal Gasification Plant Module and Utility Modules of the
Economic Model to determine syngas and utility prices as described in Sections 11.9
and 11.12. If the prices of syngas and water so obtained were significantly different
from the prices assumed in Step 1, Steps 1 through 4 were then repeated until the
results converged.
11-35
Coal
Gasification
Plant
Power Plant
(syngas + steam
in & out)
An escalation rate of 2.5%, based on the long-term general inflation rate in developed
economies, was assumed for power and various steam prices.
11.11.2. RESULTS
The following table shows the first-year prices of power and steam (in 2011 US$) that are
expected to be required to enable the power plant owner to achieve its required after-tax
IRR (and ROE, if project-financed).
Commodity at SIP
Producer(s)
Purchaser(s)
After Allocation*
Electric Power
Power Plant
$183/MWh
$202/MWh
Coke Plant
Power Plant
$41/tonne
$45/tonne
Coal Gasification
Plant
Power Plant
$35/tonne
$38/tonne
Copper Smelter
Power Plant
$35/tonne
$38/tonne
Copper Smelter,
Power Plant
DRI/HBI Plant
$36/tonne
$39/tonne
Power Plant
Copper Smelter
$31/tonne
$34/tonne
LP Steam (5 bar)
Table 11.10: SIP Base Case Power Plant Economic Analysis Results
It should be noted that the power price estimated by the analysis is significantly higher than
the grid price assumed for economic analysis of the alternate sites (115 MNT/kWh in 2013,
or approximately US$85/MWh in 2011 US$). Primary reasons for this high price include: (i)
the cost of syngas, which is estimated to cost significantly more on a US$/MMBtu basis than
coal; (ii) additional capital cost required to ensure reliability of power supply at SIP without
grid back-up; and (iii) the cost of infrastructure at SIP, which has been shown in economic
analyses of other industrial plants to be a significant economic burden.
Based on the power plant economic analysis methodology described above, the steam price
estimates are linked to the estimated power price and syngas. Hence the estimated steam
prices in the results above should reflect the high estimated price of power and the price of
syngas.
11-36
ASSUMPTIONS
To determine the prices of oxygen and nitrogen, the ASU Module of the Economic Model
assumed a 2:1 ratio between the prices of oxygen and nitrogen, based on historical market
prices of the two commodities.
11.12.1.2.
RESULTS
The analysis estimated the prices of oxygen and nitrogen at SIP would be US$86/tonne and
US$43/tonne respectively, after allocation of annual infrastructure charges as described in
Section 11.3.3. Without allocation of infrastructure charges, the prices of oxygen and
nitrogen would be US$79/tonne and US$39/tonne (2011 US$) respectively, to enable the
owner of the ASU to achieve a 10-12% after-tax IRR, corresponding to about 15% after-tax
ROE if project-financed.
11.12.2. WATER UTILITIES
11.12.2.1.
ASSUMPTIONS
The Economic Model assumed a raw water cost of 150 MNT/tonne the current cost of raw
water used by the mining industry, according to NDIC. While raw water rates are regulated,
the Economic Model assumed a 2.5% escalation rate per year (long-term average general
inflation rate in developed economies) over the life of the project.
The Economic Model solved for an industrial water price (in US$/tonne) that is expected to
recover the capital cost and operating cost of all water related facilities, including raw water
treatment and waste water treatment. At a later stage of the analysis (not part of this Master
Plan Study), the analysis may be refined to develop separate charges for raw water and
waste water treatment. Such refinement may enable a more precise evaluation of the
economics of each plant at SIP.
Non-labor operating cost was estimated at 1% of capital cost, based on Bechtels
experience with studies of similar utilities internationally.
11.12.2.2.
RESULTS
The estimated water price was US$3.5/tonne after allocation of annual infrastructure
charges as described in Section 11.3.3. Without allocation of infrastructure charges, the
water price would be US$2.5/tonne.
11.12.3. OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE AT SIP
11.12.3.1.
ASSUMPTIONS
Based on its international experience with similar studies, Bechtel estimated annual nonlabor operating and maintenance cost for the transportation infrastructure at SIP at US$12.6
million (2011 US$). This includes general maintenance for road and railway, parts and
contracted services for locomotives, consumables and miscellaneous expenses, as well as
annual amounts set aside to cover highway rehabilitation every 10 years and rail
replacement every 20 years.
Non-labor operating costs of other infrastructure were estimated at 1% of capital cost, based
on Bechtels experience with studies of similar facilities internationally.
11-37
RESULTS
Based on the assumptions described in Section 11.12.3.1 and Section 11.3.3, total annual
charges (in 2011 US$) were estimated as follows:
Material Handling Facilities
$ 97 million
$ 51 million
$ 8 million
Interconnecting Piping
$ 103 million
Telecommunications
$ 1 million
Site Infrastructure
$ 126 million
$ 386 million
Large portions of these annual charges are capital charges annual charges that are
expected to enable the GoM, as the proposed owner of the infrastructure, to recover the
capital investment plus a 6% after-tax return on investment over its 30-year assumed
economic life. Applying the assumed allocation bases in Table 11.4, annual charges were
allocated as follows (in 2011 US$):
Coke Plant
$ 56 million
$ 54 million
DRI/HBI Plant
$ 30 million
Copper Smelter
$ 72 million
$ 39 million
Cement Plant
$ 51 million
Power Plant
$ 26 million
Water Utilities
$ 18 million
Community Facilities
$ 40 million
$ 386 million
ASSUMPTIONS
The general approach and assumptions used in the economic analyses of the iron ore
pelletizing plant and DRI/HBI plant at Darkhan are as described in Sections 11.3, 11.4, 11.6
and 11.7. Primary differences in assumptions between these analyses and the economic
analyses for the same plants at Sainshand include:
Prices of various feedstock (iron ore, dolomite, bentonite, and lime) to the iron ore
pelletizing plant and the DRI/HBI plant (adjusted for freight costs)
Ex-factory price of iron ore pellets and DRI/HBI (adjusted for freight costs)
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
11-38
CRUs forecast of sulfur price was used in lieu of the sulfuric acid price, because the
DRI/HBI plant at Darkhan is designed to produce sulfur rather than sulfuric acid
The power price at Darkhan was assumed to be the grid price at Mongolias Central
Regional Energy System (CES), which is scheduled to increase to 115 MNT/kWh at the end
of 2013. While the source of coal for the coal gasification plant at Darkhan was assumed to
be the Sharyngol mine, the price of coal was assumed to be the same on a US$ per MMBtu
(cost per unit heating value) basis as the price of coal from Tavan Tolgoi assumed for the
coal gasification plant at Sainshand. As discussed in Section 2.6.3, coal from the Sharyngol
mine was assumed to be compatible in quality with the range of thermal coal from Tavan
Tolgoi; the prices of thermal coal from the two sources should thus be similar.
While it would be preferable to evaluate the combined economics of the iron ore pelletizing
plant and DRI/HBI plant at Darkhan as an integrated unit, due to significant differences in
expected economics between the iron ore pelletizing plant and DRI/HBI plant at SIP, we
have allocated the capital costs and operating costs of each common facility at the Darkhan
site between the iron ore pelletizing plant and the DRI/HBI plant to enable an indicative
comparison of project economics between the two. For example:
Capital and variable operating costs of the coal gasification plant were allocated 85%
to the DRI/HBI plant and 15% to the iron ore pelletizing plant, based on their
respective expected syngas consumption rates.
Raw water cost was allocated based on expected industrial water usage of the two
plants.
Other infrastructure costs were allocated 59% to the DRI/HBI plant and 41% to the
iron ore pelletizing plant, based on the ratio of capital costs between the two plants.
It should be noted that the economic analysis results obtained as a result of this allocation
are indicative of relative economic performance only.
11.13.1.2.
RESULTS
The economics of the iron plants at Darkhan are not expected to differ materially from those
at SIP. The iron ore pelletizing plant is expected to have a low unleveraged after-tax IRR
(below the assumed cost of debt), while the DRI/HBI plant at Darkhan is not expected to
break even from year to year.
11.13.2. COPPER SMELTER AT OYU TOLGOI
11.13.2.1.
ASSUMPTIONS
The general approach and assumptions used in the economic analysis of the copper
smelter at Oyu Tolgoi are as described in Sections 11.3, 11.4 and 11.8. Primary differences
in assumptions between this analysis and that for the copper smelter at Sainshand include:
Copper cathode outbound transportation cost (adjusted for Oyu Tolgoi location)
Power price at Oyu Tolgoi was assumed to be the grid price in the CES, which is
scheduled to increase to 115 MNT/kWh at the end of 2013
11.13.2.2.
RESULTS
The economics of the copper smelter at Oyu Tolgoi are not expected to differ materially from
that at SIP. The calculated unleveraged after-tax IRR of 0.3% is below the assumed cost of
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
11-39
ASSUMPTIONS
The general approach and assumptions used in the economic analysis of the coke plant at
Tavan Tolgoi are as described in Sections 11.3, 11.4 and 11.5. Primary differences in
assumptions between this analysis and that for the coke plant at Sainshand include:
Delivered price of coking coal and ex-factory price of metallurgical coke (adjusted for
freight costs)
As proposed, the coke plant at Tavan Tolgoi is designed to generate more power from
waste heat than its estimated internal load, allowing it to sell approximately 183 MW of
power to the grid at Tavan Tolgoi. According to NDIC, Tavan Tolgoi will be connected to
Mongolias CES by 2015. Therefore, the economic analysis of the coke plant at this location
included a revenue stream from sale of power at an assumed price equal to the average
cost of electric generation (including capital cost, fuel cost and other operating expenses,
the cost of debt financing and a reasonable return on investment) in the CES.
According to NDIC, generation cost currently accounts for approximately 47.77 MNT/kWh of
the 79.80 MNT/kWh electricity tariff to large industrial users in the CES. The Mongolian
Parliament has approved a tariff increase to 115 MNT/kWh in the CES by the end of 2013.
The economic analysis assumed that the price of power sold to the grid would be
US$55/MWh in 2013, estimated by assuming the generation component of the tariff would
remain unchanged as a percentage of the total electricity tariff.
11.13.3.2.
RESULTS
The calculated unleveraged after-tax IRR for the coke plant at Tavan Tolgoi, based on the
assumptions described above, is 9.0%. The lower unleveraged after-tax IRR at Tavan
Tolgoi compared with the same plant at SIP may be attributed to the lower power sale
revenue at Tavan Tolgoi the assumed grid price is lower than the power price estimated at
SIP12 which is expected to reduce the profitability of the coke plant, a net producer of
electricity.
12
In the Base Case, the coke plant at SIP is assumed to generate revenue from sale of steam to the
power plant at SIP. As described in Section 11.11, the price of steam at SIP is calculated in the
Power Plant Module based on the price of power.
11-40
Industrial Plant
Base Case
Sainshand
(Before
Allocation*)
Base Case
Sainshand
(After
Allocation*)
Base Case
Alternate Sites
Coke Plant
15.9%
15.2%
9.0%
Cement Plant
6.5%
N/A
N/A
0.7%
N/A
1.0%
DRI/HBI Plant
N/A
N/A
N/A
Copper Smelter
N/A
N/A
0.3%
10.5%**
10.5%**
N/A
Power Plant
10.4%**
10.4%**
N/A
* Allocation of annual charges for infrastructure e.g., materials handling, roads and rail, telecommunications,
interconnecting piping, site preparation
** Based on the generic financing and tax assumptions, after-tax unleveraged IRR of 10.4%-10.5% is
associated with an after-tax leveraged return on equity of 15%
N/A Not applicable; either because the plant is not in analysis scope or because after-tax unleveraged IRR
cannot be calculated due to poor project economics
The high cost of power at SIP is expected to have a significant negative impact on
the economic performance of all industrial plants and utilities, except the coke plant,
which is designed to be a net producer of energy in the form of steam and should
therefore benefit from high prices of power and steam at SIP. This high cost of
power is a result of the equipment redundancy required to power the plant in the
event of steam shortage from the industrial plants.
The capital and operating costs of infrastructure are significant, both at SIP and at
the alternate sites. At SIP, these contribute to high annual charges for infrastructure,
especially for projects with otherwise marginal economics. At the alternate sites, the
cost of infrastructure is expected to reduce economic returns significantly, as
evidenced by comparing the expected unleveraged after-tax IRRs of industrial plants
at the alternate sites with the expected unleveraged after-tax IRRs, before allocation
of infrastructure charges, of their counterparts at SIP.
Low operating income and high capital costs contribute to the low expected
unleveraged after-tax IRR of the copper smelter.
11-41
Supplying power from the grid, instead of constructing a dedicated power plant to
supply the electric load within SIP as proposed in Task 2
Other changes to the design bases of industrial plants at SIP that are likely to
improve project economics, such as increasing plant capacity to take advantage of
economies of scale in construction and production
Per NDICs request, Bechtel conducted economic analyses for a Revised Base Case for
the industrial plants at SIP, as well as additional scenarios incorporating various options
(including changes in design bases and government incentives) aimed at enhancing the
economic viability of the industrial plants at SIP.
11.15.1. REVISED BASE CASE SIP WITH GRID POWER
11.15.1.1.
ASSUMPTIONS
In the Revised Base Case for SIP, the coke plant was assumed to be equipped with a power
block to generate net output of 187 MW from waste heat to supply power to other plants in
SIP. Other plants at SIP were estimated to require an electric load of 250 MW, resulting in a
net SIP electrical load of 63 MW that is proposed to be supplied by the grid at 115 MNT/kWh
(2013 price; assume 2.5% escalation rate per year). Discussions among Bechtel, NDIC and
the SIP working group confirmed that this assumption is reasonable in light of the GoMs
latest plans to build coal-fired plants at Tavan Tolgoi and/or another site close to Sainshand.
Furthermore, all common facilities at SIP were assumed to be owned and financed by the
GoM, and no infrastructure charges would be imposed on the plants at SIP.
Table 11.12 shows the material balance at SIP in the Revised Base Case.
11-42
Unit
Iron Ore
Direct
Coal
Copper
Pelletizing Reduction Iron Gasification Smelter
3.0 trains
1,312
1,000
4,459
5
15
82
23
45
-
RAW MATERIALS
Thermal Coal
Coking Coal
Copper Concentrate
Iron Ore
Limestone
Lime
Silica
Gypsum
Bentonite
Dolomite
Basalt
Steel Slag
Clay
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
PRODUCTS
Direct Reduction Iron
Copper
Metallurgic Coke
Cement
Sulfuric Acid
Gold
Silver
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
TPA
TPA
(2,500)
-
INTERMEDIATE PRODUCTS
Iron Ore Pellets
Reducing Gas
Hydrogen
Nitrogen
Oxygen
Acid Gas (as Sulfur)
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
(4,500)
-
3,625
1,109
160
50
-
(1,109)
1
981
(8.3)
2
333
-
WASTE PRODUCTS
Ash
Gypsum (FGD)
Slag
Waste Water
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
(25)
(25)
(99)
(924)
(571)
(39)
UTILITIES
Raw Water
BFW/Condensate
Industrial Water
Potable Water
Sanitary Sewer
Coke HP Steam (535C 100 bar)
Gas HP Steam (316C 48 bar)
Copper HP Steam (60 bar)
MP Steam (15 bar)
LP Steam (5 bar)
Electrical Power
Fuel Gas
Fuel Oil
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
kTPA
MW
MW
kTPA
700
9.0
(7.2)
22.5
144
-
3,025
3.8
(3.0)
1,346
3,800
4.3
(3.4)
3,097
19.3
(15.5)
(1,346)
36.6
(144)
-
26.6
5.9
14
46.9
-
(300)
(925)
(10)
(64)
Coke
Oven
2,900
22
-
127
1,310
50
250
16
40
(2,000)
-
Bulk
Handling
Air
Separation
Raw
Water
Waste Community
Water
Facilities
Net
1,439
2,900
1,000
4,459
1,310
42
82
50
23
45
250
16
40
(1,000)
-
(26)
-
(2,500)
(300)
(2,000)
(1,000)
(951)
(10)
(64)
8.3
(163)
(1,364)
-
(875)
-
(44)
(194)
(25)
(4,298)
5,372
(99)
(44)
(571)
(158)
1,316
7.0
(5.7)
(187)
-
198
6.2
(5.0)
22.0
-
5.2
3.0
-
4.1
(3.3)
10
-
1.0
(0.8)
74
-
13,224
(7,828)
(1,097)
(1.4)
3.0
-
(5,197)
1.7
1,242
3.0
-
859
1,036
(1,194)
3.0
-
13,224
(25)
(4.1)
3.2
(0)
63.2
6.3
14
11-43
Coke Plant
Copper Plant
Cement Plant
371,825
431,763
591,095
203,517
178,029
323,920
280,170
486,640
167,055
134,006
31,900
55,926
102,944
35,445
19,746
66,530
57,980
107,328
36,952
27,702
1,776,229
1,391,791
245,961
296,492
142,099
1,541
345,576
111,344
1,541
270,842
19,677
1,335
48,055
23,719
1,027
57,823
2,265,445
1,775,517
315,029
379,061
18,844,060
15,514,013
3,281,816
3,421,601
DRI/HBI Plant
Total SIP
109,048
111,447
135,407
46,621
48,647
125,283
62,654
54,491
84,301
48,523
42,709
531,280
390,390
108,247
802,685
106,961
207,206
1,559,787
1,390,330
162,738
2,310,401
645,073
658,046
Subtotal
451,170
417,962
2,146,770
6,726,375
Contractor Fee
Owner's Cost
Contingency
36,094
1,027
87,892
33,437
26,236
85,974
171,742
7,731
418,725
538,111
40,438
1,314,887
576,184
563,609
2,744,967
8,619,812
4,316,770
2,687,490
25,437,056
73,502,806
Total Cost
Direct Construction Hours
11-44
RESULTS
The assumption changes in the Revised Base Case led to an improvement in project
economics across SIP, except the coke plant, which suffered a decrease in unleveraged
after-tax IRR as a result of lower power sale revenue. (As a net producer of power, the coke
plant economics generally deteriorate as the power price decreases.) Despite the decrease
in unleveraged after-tax IRR, the coke plant remained economically feasible, in Bechtels
view, given this stage of the analysis. Meanwhile, the unleveraged after-tax IRR of the
cement plant at SIP improved to a level comparable with the coke plants.
With the capital costs of supporting infrastructure and utilities excluded, project economics
at the alternate sites are not expected to differ significantly from that at SIP, as shown in
Table 11.14 below.
Industrial Plant
Coke Plant
10.4%
9.8%
Cement Plant
10.8%
N/A
6.1%
6.7%
N/A
N/A
1.8%
N/A
10.5%*
N/A
DRI/HBI Plant
Copper Smelter
* Based on the generic financing and tax assumptions, after-tax unleveraged IRR of 10.5% is associated
with an after-tax return on equity of 15%
** Capital costs were adjusted to eliminate capital cost of infrastructure, which was assumed to be funded
by the GoM
N/A Not applicable; either because the plant is not in analysis scope or because after-tax unleveraged
IRR cannot be calculated due to poor project economics
Table 11.14: Revised Base Case Unleveraged after-tax IRRs Sainshand vs. Alternate
Sites
Table 11.15 compares the expected unleveraged after-tax IRRs of the industrial plants at
SIP in the Revised Base Case against the results in the original Base Case.
11-45
Industrial Plant
Base Case
Sainshand
(Before Allocation*)
Coke Plant
15.9%
10.4%
Cement Plant
6.5%
10.8%
0.7%
6.1%
DRI/HBI Plant
N/A
N/A
Copper Smelter
N/A
1.8%
10.5%**
10.5%**
Power Plant
10.4%**
N/A
* Allocation of annual charges for infrastructure e.g., materials handling, roads and rail, telecommunications,
interconnecting piping, site preparation
** Based on the generic financing and tax assumptions, after-tax unleveraged IRR of 10.4%-10.5% is associated
with an after-tax leveraged return on equity of 15%
N/A Not applicable; either because the plant is not in analysis scope or because after-tax unleveraged IRR
cannot be calculated due to poor project economics
NDIC also requested Bechtel to evaluate and recommend government incentives that the
GoM may consider to enhance the economic feasibility of SIP projects to private investors.
Upon reviewing the pro forma financial projections for each industrial plant, Bechtel
developed a list of potential government incentives, each targeted at a key driver of project
economics. These potential incentives were discussed with NDIC and, based on NDICs
feedback, were organized into a number of government incentive scenarios for further
economic analyses.
Table 11.16 is a brief qualitative assessment of the ideas developed during this process.
11-46
Targeted
Economic
Driver
Exemption from
VAT and customs
duty on EPC cost
VAT impact
on capital
cost
VAT impact
on operating
cost
Mongolian tax
holiday
Income tax
and
withholding
tax
Water cost
Electricity cost
subsidy / price
control
Electricity
cost
Feedstock cost
subsidy / price
control
Feedstock
cost (e.g.,
syngas,
thermal coal)
Product price
subsidy
Product price
11-47
Inclusion of iron ore pellet exports in the list of commodities eligible for zero rating for
VAT purposes
Mongolian tax holiday exemption from Mongolian income tax and withholding tax
Subsidies aimed at reducing the price of syngas produced by the coal gasification
plant at SIP:
o
GoM ownership
Selling Tavan Tolgoi thermal coal to the coal gasification plant below market
value, at mine cost plus transportation 13
Fully subsidized electricity costs for analysis purposes, assume that the
coal gasification plant does not need to pay for its use of electricity (economic
impact will be reduced if subsidy is less than 100%)
Because different SIP industrial plants exhibited different degrees of economic feasibility
and different sensitivities to various economic drivers, Bechtel ranked the potential
government incentives, based on its preliminary assessment and consultation with NDIC,
from the easiest to implement / most politically acceptable, to the least desirable from a
policy standpoint. Using these incentives as building blocks, Bechtel then developed seven
government incentive scenarios, each with the addition of one incremental government
incentive compared with the previous one. Together, these seven scenarios represent
progressively increasing levels of government support.
Table 11.17 defines the seven government incentive scenarios, describing the government
incentive added in each scenario, the industrial plant(s) that the incremental incentive is
intended to benefit, as well as the corresponding change in modeling assumption(s).
For each industrial plant at SIP, economic analyses were conducted using Scenarios 1
through 7, beginning with Scenario 1, the scenario with the least amount of government
support, until the expected unleveraged project IRRs exceeded 11% assumed to be in the
range of unleveraged after-tax IRRs (10%-12%) foreign investors may expect in preliminary
economic assessments of investments in Mongolia 14. An industrial plant with a weaker
economic profile under Revised Base Case assumptions, therefore, would generally require
an incentive scenario further down Table 11.18 (in other words, a bigger package of
13
As Bechtel understands, the GoM has ownership rights to certain coal reserves at Tavan Tolgoi.
Selling Tavan Tolgoi thermal coal at cost is thus an option available to the GoM.
14
Bechtel did not approach potential investors to survey required unleveraged after-tax IRRs as part
of this study. Based on Bechtels experience conducting preliminary economic assessments of
international projects, international investors typically require a minimum unleveraged after-tax IRR of
9%-10% before adjustments for country risk for these types of projects. Including an assumed
country risk premium of 2% (assuming continuing improvement in Mongolias sovereign/political risk
profile over the next couple years), Bechtel estimated that an unleveraged after-tax IRR between 10%
and 12% may be required by international investors. Bechtel does not make any representation that
projects with expected unleveraged after-tax IRRs of 10%-12% or higher will attract investors.
11-48
No.
Affected
Industrial
Plant(s)
Description of
Government Incentives
All
All
All
Scenario 4 + GoM
ownership of coal
gasification plant
Iron ore
pelletizing plant
Coal
gasification
plant
Table 11.17
11.15.2.3.
Coal
gasification
plant
Coal
gasification
plant
Table 11.18 summarizes the expected unleveraged after-tax IRRs for each industrial plant
that is expected to sell its products outside SIP under different scenarios. Once the
expected unleveraged after-tax IRR of an industrial plant exceeds 11% in a scenario (the
minimum economic scenario), unleveraged after-tax IRRs are not shown for subsequent
incentive scenarios the underlying assumption was that no incremental incentives would
likely be required to further enhance economic feasibility.
11-49
Scenario
Coke
Plant
Iron Ore
Pelletizing
Plant
Copper
Smelter
DRI/HBI
Plant
10.8%
10.4%
6.1%
1.8%
N/A
12.0%
11.4%
8.1%
4.9%
N/A
10.5%
6.6%
N/A
11.6%
7.1%
N/A
7.1%
N/A
7.1%
6.1%
7.1%
10.4%
4.2%
N/A After-tax unleveraged IRR cannot be calculated due to poor project economics
With power supplied from the grid and with the cost of infrastructure borne by the
GoM, the cement plant and the coke plant at SIP may be economically feasible
without further government incentives, under the Revised Base Case assumptions.
Depending on investors required IRR, one-time government incentives, such as
exemption of VAT and customs duty on EPC cost, may be required to enhance their
economics further.
Under the Revised Base Case assumptions, the iron ore pelletizing plant at SIP
would likely also require government incentives included in Scenario 3 (exemption
from VAT and customs duty on EPC cost, zero VAT rating for iron ore pellet exports,
and Mongolian tax holiday) to become economically feasible.
While increasing the capacity of the copper smelter, adding a water subsidy, and the
package of government incentives included in Scenario 4 are expected to improve
the economics of the copper smelter at SIP, our analyses have shown that the
economics of the copper smelter may be marginal despite these changes.
According to the sensitivity analysis, a reduction in capital cost and/or increase in
commodity pricing may be required to further improve the expected unleveraged
after-tax IRR to a level typically expected by potential investors. Alternatively, it is
also possible that an investor is willing to accept a single digit expected return due to
other strategic or economic considerations outside the scope of this study.
The DRI/HBI plant at SIP is not expected to break even on a cash flow basis, even
with government incentives in Scenario 4, as long as the syngas price stays above
US$6/MMBtu in 2011 US$. Additional government incentives directed at the coal
gasification plant to reduce syngas price to approximately US$3/MMBtu are
expected to be required to improve the expected unleveraged after-tax IRR to a level
typically expected by potential investors.
11-50
To facilitate decision-making by the GoM, sensitivity analyses were conducted around the
minimum economic scenario for each plant at SIP. These are intended to show how
uncertainty in key assumptions may affect the economic feasibility of each plant, given the
set of government incentives (if any) included in the scenario.
CRU specified the range of commodity price variation around its Base Case forecast, based
on its experience in developing long-range commodity price forecasts for similar studies.
Other sensitivity ranges selected for each variable were based on Bechtels experience in
similar studies (for example, capital cost sensitivity of +/-40% is consistent with the level of
precision in Bechtels capital cost estimates).
Figures 11.5 through 11.9 show the results of the sensitivity analyses.
Coke Project IRR
20%
18%
-40% Capex
16%
+30% Opex
+30% Water Cost
-30% Opex
-30 Water Cost
10%
8%
+40% Capex
4%
2%
0%
Figure 11.5 SIP Coke Plant Unleveraged After-tax IRR Sensitivity Analysis Results
11-51
-40% Capex
18%
16%
14%
-30% Opex
12%
+40% Capex
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
Figure 11.6 SIP Cement Plant Unleveraged After-tax IRR Sensitivity Analysis Results
Iron Ore Pelletizing Plant Project IRR
20%
18%
-40% Capex
16%
14%
12%
- 30% Opex
-30% Water Cost
8%
+40% Capex
6%
4%
2%
0%
Figure 11.7 SIP Iron Ore Pelletizing Plant Unleveraged After-tax IRR Sensitivity Analysis
Results
11-52
Capex -40%
16%
14%
Power - 30%
12%
Opex - 30%
Water + 30%
10%
8%
Water - 30%
Opex + 30%
Power + 30%
Capex +40%
6%
4%
2%
Figure 11.8 SIP DRI/HBI Plant Unleveraged After-tax IRR Sensitivity Analysis Results
Copper Project IRR
20%
18%
16%
14%
12%
-40% Capex
High Commodity Case
10%
8%
6%
+40% Capex
4%
0%
Figure 11.9: SIP Copper Smelter Unleveraged After-tax IRR Sensitivity Analysis Results
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
11-53
The costs of infrastructure and utilities (with the exception of the ASU, which is
proposed to be privately-owned and shared among the coal gasification plant, the
DRI/HBI plant, and the copper smelter) have a substantial impact on economics.
GoM ownership and financing of infrastructure and utilities is critical to enhancing the
economics of most industrial plants.
The proposed coke plant may be economically feasible at SIP or Tavan Tolgoi, if the
GoM provides basic infrastructure and utilities.
With power supplied by the grid, the cement plant proposed for SIP may also be
economically feasible if the GoM provides basic infrastructure and utilities.
With appropriate GoM incentives (such as exemption from VAT and customs duty,
income tax holiday, provision of infrastructure, and subsidized water costs), the iron
ore pelletizing plant proposed for SIP may be economically feasible.
Under Base Case assumptions, the expected economics of proposed copper smelter
may only be marginal , even with GoM provided infrastructure and tax incentives.
Significant improvement in revenue assumptions and/or reduction in capital cost
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
11-54
set forth in the Important Notice.
Of all the industrial plants proposed for SIP, the DRI/HBI plant is expected to have
the least favorable economics. According to our analysis, the DRI/HBI plant is not
expected to be economically feasible unless it can procure syngas at less than US$3
per MMBtu (2011 US$) in line with prevailing natural gas prices where natural gas
is available. While it has not been confirmed by the economic analyses conducted
as part of this study, it is possible that a smaller DRI/HBI plant sized to serve the
Mongolian market may have better economics DRI/HBI for sale in the domestic
market may command a higher ex-factory price than DRI/HBI exported to the
competitive Chinese and international markets.
Economics of the industrial plants at the alternate sites are not expected to be
significantly different from that at SIP, provided that the GoM provides the same level
of infrastructure support.
To fulfill the GoMs objective of developing SIP as a greenfield industrial complex with
private investment, we recommend, based on economic analyses summarized in this
section, that the GoM consider the following actions:
Finalize and approve the scope of SIP In this study, we have opined on the
technical and economic aspects of SIP, including the expected economics of the
proposed plants under various scenarios. Based on the analyses conducted in this
study, and evaluation of other factors outside of the scope of this study (some
suggestions are included in Section 11.18.2 below), the GoM should make an
appropriate decision regarding SIP, including determining the industrial plants that
will be developed.
Develop a plan to finance and implement infrastructure and utilities Given the
importance of government-sponsored infrastructure and utilities to the economic
feasibility of most of the proposed industrial plants, the GoM should develop a plan
to finance and implement these projects. While not studied as part of this economic
analysis, the same would be true of outside the park infrastructure required to
support operations of SIP (e.g., grid upgrades, rail transportation links, community
facilities, raw water supply infrastructure, upgrade of border crossing capacity, if
necessary). As discussed in Section 12, expediting implementation of these projects
would also signal the GoMs commitment to the development of SIP, which may
enhance potential investors confidence in investing in SIP.
Develop the legal framework for government incentives The scenario analyses
discussed in Section 11.15 indicate that some level of government incentives would
likely be required to enhance the economics of certain industrial plants proposed for
SIP. While the expected economics of the plants and investor requirements will
continue to evolve, it would be beneficial to start developing a legal framework that
allows the GoM to grant incentives as it enters into negotiations to attract private
investment to SIP. In our opinion, the legal framework for incentives should be
broadly defined, so as to give the GoM flexibility to negotiate incentives that are
economically justified, on a case-by-case basis.
Iron plant for the Mongolian market If the GoM remains committed to developing
downstream iron and steel making capabilities in Mongolia, the GoM is advised to
evaluate the technical and economic feasibility of alternative technologies that may
be more feasible for the estimated size of the Mongolian market. Experience around
the world has shown that developing a countrys industrial capabilities through import
substitution (i.e., developing in-country production capability to satisfy domestic
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
11-55
Engage advisors While the economic analyses in this section provide indicative
results to assist with the GoMs understanding of project economics, the
attractiveness of the proposed industrial plants to potential investors is best
determined by discussing the SIP project with potential investors. This effort,
referred to as validating and refining SIP approach and explained in greater detail
in Section 12, is best accomplished with the assistance of an experienced
commercial advisor. As proposed in Section 12, the commercial advisor should work
with other legal and technical advisors engaged by the GoM, to ensure that all
relevant aspects of the project are addressed.
Capital cost and operating cost Revise capital cost and operating cost
estimates, based on additional engineering work, to reflect technology vendor
specific capital cost and operations and maintenance requirements.
Tax Refine tax calculations in the Economic Model to include Mongolian and
foreign taxes (if any) specific to the tax entity structure of the investor.
Target after-tax IRR / ROE / discount rate Revise target IRR, ROE, and discount
rate assumptions based on expected cost of capital and on equity investors view of
project risk and political risk.
11-56
Increase in tax base, especially in the city of Sainshand and the surrounding
Dornogobi Aimag
Some of the benefits above are difficult to quantify; others are beyond the scope and
methodology of this economic analysis. Nevertheless, in developing its vision and strategy
for SIP, the GoM is advised to weigh other less quantifiable factors, especially:
Future expansion opportunity The vast site reserved for development of SIP
provides significant room for future expansion (beyond plots reserved for expansion
of industrial plants in the proposed site layout), which may not be available to the
same extent at the alternate locations. For a long-term development project such as
SIP, it is difficult to anticipate the future industrial growth opportunities that may
arise, even with extensive market studies, due to inherent uncertainty in the world
macroeconomic environment. An investment in the site and infrastructure at SIP
could lay the foundation for emergence of future industries that either cannot be
anticipated today or are considered not economically feasible today. By making an
initial investment in the development of SIP, and possibly deferring projects that may
not be economically feasible based on current forecasts, the GoM may acquire what
is known as a real option in finance theory the value of which cannot be
adequately captured by conventional discounted cash flow analyses of the individual
industrial plants.
11-57
12.
In this section, Bechtel evaluates the Government of Mongolias (GoMs) strategy for the
Sainshand Industrial Park (SIP) in comparison to international precedent with similar
industrial park development. First examined are issues that international investors may
consider when they evaluate SIP investment opportunities and commercial considerations
that the GoM should address to achieve a successful outcome for the park. Next, Bechtel
describes potential alternative commercial approaches for implementing SIP and its
component projects and their implications for achieving GoM objectives and for potential
financing sources. This section of the report concludes with a preliminary development
schedule of tasks that should be achieved by GoM and its development team to attempt to
successfully develop and implement SIP.
Bechtels views and comments are preliminary, based on its experience with similar projects
and extensive discussions with international financing institutions and consultants actively
engaged with these types of projects. However, the Report recommends that the GoM
engage a strong advisory team after its approval of the Master Plan to refine the
commercial, financing, and technical approaches for the park and to finalize these
approaches based on feedback from prospective international investors and lenders.
12.1.
Executive Summary
The Sainshand Industrial Park is projected to be the cornerstone of Mongolias
industrialization strategy. This strategy envisages leveraging the coal, copper, iron ore, and
other mineral resources that are Mongolias natural comparative advantage to attract
international investment in industrial facilities to create a strong foundation for economic
growth. The Government of Mongolia should develop a strong regulatory, legal, and
institutional foundation to attract investors to implement these facilities and achieve its
objectives for the park.
According to the Facility for Investment Climate Advisory Services (FIAS) in its 2008 Special
Economic Zones report published by the World Bank, over the past 30 years, thousands of
special economic zones have been developed worldwide. These zones include free trade
zones, export processing zones, and industrial parks which can serve as useful models for
Mongolia as it embarks on SIP development. Successful zone developments usually share
certain common elements, including:
A long-term commitment by the government to support zone development
Strong connectivity to major transportation networks
Strong legal, regulatory, and institutional frameworks
Good infrastructure to support development of zone facilities
A strong package of regulatory, fiscal, and financial incentives
Prospective investors may consider these and other aspects of the proposed park in
assessing their investment in SIP against other global investment opportunities. Some
factors that may influence their investment decision include:
12-1
A sustainable plan for attracting and training workers for the park and required
support facilities (hospitals, schools, etc.)
Availability of an Environmental Impact Assessment that covers the entire SIP park
complex, meets World Bank and Mongolian environmental standards, and
addresses the environmental impact of the park with recommendations to mitigate
impacts
With a strong regulatory, legal, and institutional foundation for the park and with enabling
outside-the-park and inside-the-park common infrastructure in process, the GoM should be
able to attract investor interest in the SIP. The GoM should work with its advisory team to
identify its preferred commercial approach for the planned common inside-the-park
infrastructure projects and the industrial plants. In part, this process should be based on
feedback received from prospective international investors and lenders in meetings with the
GoM and its commercial advisor after SIP approval by the GoM.
Three alternative ownership models are available for SIP projects: wholly-government
(public) ownership; wholly-private ownership; or joint venture ownership between the GoM
and one or more private investors. In a concession project structure, the government
typically retains legal ownership, but beneficial ownership resides with the concessionaire
and is administered under the terms of a concession agreement. Consequently, a
concession may be used to achieve many of the same objectives as wholly-private
ownership. The choice of ownership model for a particular SIP project will largely be
determined by the nature and economic viability of the project, scale of the project, status of
the park build-out during project implementation and operation, and GoM objectives.
Common inside-the-park infrastructure needed to support start of construction of the
industrial plants (Tier 1) will likely need to be implemented as wholly-government owned
projects with the potential to transition to a concession structure after park build-out.
Common inside-the-park infrastructure that can be deferred until the later stages of the park
implementation process or that can be packaged with park industrial facilities (Tier 2) may
be implemented as wholly-private or joint venture projects on a concession basis if they can
recover their costs through charges to the industrial plants. To the extent that such costs
threaten the economic viability of the industrial plants, these projects may need to be
implemented as wholly-government owned projects with the potential to transition to a
concession structure in the future. Industrial plants are planned to be implemented as
wholly-private or joint venture projects on a concession basis.
Wholly-government owned projects are planned to be financed on the GoMs balance sheet
on a sovereign-credit basis and funded from a mix of internal sources and external
borrowings. External funding sources may include the Asian Development Bank, European
Bank for Reconstruction and Development, export credit agencies, or national development
banks. Wholly-private or joint venture concession projects may be financed on a corporate
credit basis (in which the concessionaire guarantees loan repayment) or on a limited
recourse project finance basis (in which loan repayment is secured by project revenues and
underpinned by a network of contracts among the project participants). A project financing
entails a more complex financing structure and consequently is usually more expensive and
time-consuming to implement and presents greater financing execution risk than other
financing alternatives.
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
12-2
set forth in the Important Notice.
12.2.
According to the FIAS in its 2008 Special Economic Zones report published by the World
Bank, over the past 30 years, thousands of special economic zones (SEZs) have been
successfully developed worldwide that have contributed significantly to the growth and
industrialization of developing countries. These SEZs can encompass many forms, but
most often they take the form of free trade zones, export processing zones, and other types
of industrial zones, including industrial parks. Industrial parks typically leverage indigenous
minerals and resources that constitute a countrys natural comparative advantage to attract
international investment to drive industrialization. For example, Saudi Arabia has leveraged
its vast oil and gas reserves to create a multi-industrial petrochemical industry.
12-3
To expand the minerals extraction industry value chain through new, vertically
integrated indigenous industries that may produce new value-added exports for
Mongolia
To produce export products that are in demand worldwide and support Mongolias
industrialization strategy
12.3.
The SIP Base Case technical solution assumed that power for SIP would be provided by a
captive power plant, which would recover its costs through a power tariff charged to park
tenants. The Base Case also assumed that the cost of all other utilities and infrastructure
needed to support development and operation of the industrial plants would be recovered
through charges to park tenants.
When evaluated on this basis, a number of the industrial plants planned for SIP generated
low investor returns that would be unlikely to attract significant investor interest.
Consequently, NDIC directed Bechtel to analyze a Revised Base Case in which power
would be supplied from the grid, the GoM would own and finance SIP infrastructure and
utilities, the design bases of certain industrial plants were modified to improve economics
and certain government incentives were provided to encourage private investment in SIP.
This section of the Master Plan Report is premised on implementation of this Revised Base
Case.
12.4.
The World Bank has studied SEZs in great detail over the past 30 years and identified
certain common elements that make them successful. According to the World Bank,
successful zones are generally recognized as zones that maximize direct and indirect
benefits to the host country with benefits exceeding host country costs. Maximizing zone
benefits often depends on the degree to which the zone is integrated into the economy of
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
12-4
Even well-conceived SEZ concepts may face significant barriers to implementation success.
Moreover, because these projects operate in a dynamic economic and political environment,
the incentive package and other elements of a countrys program should be continually
monitored and refined to address unanticipated challenges or to eliminate ineffective or
unnecessary incentives. Key success factors and challenges for select countries that have
implemented SEZ programs are summarized in Table 12.2 which is based on the FIAS 2008
Special Economic Zones report published by the World Bank and a compilation of other
public sources.
12-5
China
India
Philippines
Singapore
Thailand
Vietnam
Abu
Dhabi
(Khalifa)
Saudi Arabia
(Jubail)
Egypt (Suez)
CHALLENGES
Originally developed as general economic
zones, so benefits from synergies were
realized
several
years
after
zone
implementation through ad hoc clustering
Clear legal and regulatory framework
supportive of foreign investment was slow
to develop
Infrastructure lags behind Asia regional
competitors
Macroeconomic instability discourages
foreign investment
Physical space is limited, so government
reclaimed land to create Jurong Island
None identified
None identified
Country case studies describing key elements of the policy and institutional framework,
incentive package, and park implementation model for select countries are presented in
Appendix 12.A.
While countries have generally tailored their SEZ programs to support their development
and industrialization objectives, most SEZs share certain common characteristics (e.g., a
package of fiscal incentives and supporting infrastructure to encourage companies to locate
in the zone, logistical connectivity through an adjacent port or transportation network, and a
legal framework that allows foreign direct investment). Table 12.3, based on a compilation
of data from publicly available sources compares a number of international special
economic zones across key characteristics.
Notable SEZ Failures
Some elements of unsuccessful SEZs include:
Zone rationale and planning that led to poor choice of location and massive capital
outlays for supporting infrastructure
Zones that are not operated on a cost recovery basis and become a cash drain for
host governments
Zones that provide ongoing subsidies for electricity and other services in an attempt
to compensate for zone deficiencies
In general, incentives cannot compensate for poor location, a poor policy framework and a
cumbersome bureaucratic process.
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
12-6
Industrial Estates,
Thailand
FINANCING
APPROACH*
FOREIGN
OWNERSHIP
ALLOWED
RIGHT TO HIRE
FOREIGN
EMPLOYEES
ACCELERATED
LICENSING AND
APPLICATION
PROCESS
ACCESS TO
MINERALS
(vs. other
comparative
advantages, e.g.
labor, location)
FOREIGN
INVESTMENT
ALLOWED
LOCATION NEAR
PORT &
TRANSPORT
GOVERNMENT
FINANCING
AVAILABLE
ZONE
INFRASTRUCTURE
PROVIDED
SEZ, COUNTRY
PACKAGE OF
FISCAL
INCENTIVES
Project
Finance**
Project
Finance
Various***
Various***
Project
Finance
Project
Finance
Various***
Various***
Financing approach refers to the typical approach used to finance projects in the relevant SEZ.
**
Joint venture structure in which a Saudi company entered into a joint venture with private sector companies to
implement projects using a project financing or corporate financing structure.
***
Financing structure was determined by the nature of the project being financed, with both project finance and
corporate financing structures used in the park.
The World Bank has identified some examples of unsuccessful SEZs including:
Bataan, Philippines A poor location that resulted in high infrastructure costs and
the need to subsidize utilities. Consequently, the zone became a cash drain for the
government owner with costs exceeding revenues. The zone was eventually sold to
private investors who were able to improve services at lower cost, eventually making
the zone moderately successful.
12.5.
INVESTOR CONSIDERATIONS
To attempt to achieve success in the global competition for foreign direct investment,
countries must provide investors assurances that their commitment of time, effort and
money will be adequately compensated. When potential investors assess an investment
opportunity at SIP, they will evaluate a number of factors that may influence their investment
decision.
12-7
A second agency that should be established, usually called the industrial park development
agency, should be responsible for administering and developing the park. In the early years
of industrial park development, most parks were developed by the public sector, but current
best practice is for a private sector company to take on responsibility for developing and
managing industrial parks and delivery of services. However, this depends on the nature of
the park and a countrys stage of development. Parks that require significant enabling
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
12-8
12-9
12-10
12-11
12.6.
SIP is an exciting and ambitious project that has the potential to significantly increase
economic growth and industrialization in Mongolia. However, its successful implementation
will require the GoM to assess and resolve a number of significant issues in order to
establish an effective commercial approach and development plan in an attempt to attract
potential international investors. Some of these issues include:
Sustained High-Level GoM Support
Achieving a successful outcome for large, complex projects like SIP requires a sustained
broad-based consensus among government agencies regarding the need and approach for
the project. Success may only be achieved if the project is supported at the highest levels
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
12-12
12.7.
FIAS in its 2008 Special Economic Zones report published by the World Bank states that
current best practice is for SEZs to be developed by the private sector. However, most of
these zones are free trade zones or export processing zones that are located in urban areas
supported by existing local infrastructure and are much less complex than SIP. Given the
complexity of SIP and the significant amount of enabling infrastructure required, it may be
difficult to attract a private park developer to take full responsibility for SIP implementation.
Moreover, the GoM will likely want to maintain strong involvement in light of the significance
of SIP to its industrialization program. Consequently, SIP will likely need to be developed
and administered through a GoM park development agency or some form of public-private
partnership between the GoM park development agency and a private sector park
developer.
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
12-13
ii.
iii.
Joint Venture (a hybrid structure involving joint ownership between GoM and one or
more private sector companies)
12-14
Projects that entail some form of cooperation between private sector and public sector
companies are known as public-private partnerships, PPPs, or P3 projects. As described in
Appendix 12.B, Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) Lessons Learned, PPPs encompass
a wide spectrum of project structures that can be tailored to achieve the level of
involvement, control, and risk allocation desired by the GoM. Figure 12.2 illustrates the
risk/control continuum and shows where various PPP structures fall on this continuum. For
example, the government may construct a project on a public sector basis and engage an
experienced private sector company to operate the project under the term of an operations
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
12-15
A technical description of the park and its component projects based on the technical
information developed by the PMC
Outline of zoning, permits, consents for construction, and the expedited path to
obtain them
Expansion rights, if any, and any legal obligations associated with the expansion of
SIP
Draft agreement addressing any raw materials purchased (coal, oil, copper) from the
GoM or GoM-controlled companies
roles
and
If commercial terms cannot be agreed upon, the GoM should allow materials
to be purchased from other sources
12-16
Transfer pricing basis for products produced and consumed within the park
(synthesis gas, industrial gases, potable and industrial water, etc.)
12-17
Recommended Ownership
Model
Category
Project
Tier 1 Insidethe-Park
Access roads
Public
Public
Public
Tier 2 Insidethe-Park
Power transmission
distribution network
Industrial
Plants
facilities
and
electric
Public
Coking plant
Private concession
Copper smelter
Private concession
Private concession
DRI/HBI plant
Private concession
Private concession
Cement plant
Private concession
Tier 2 projects are those common facilities that need to be available to support industrial
plant operation and therefore should either be constructed as stand-alone projects after
industrial plant construction has begun (e.g., rail system inside the park) or packaged with
an industrial plant project if the two are closely integrated (e.g., air separation plant and the
coal gasification plant). Tier 2 projects may be implemented as wholly-private or joint
venture projects on a concession basis if they can recover their costs through charges to
industrial plants. To the extent that such costs threaten the economic viability of the
industrial plants, these projects may need to be implemented as wholly-government owned
projects with the potential to transition to a concession structure in the future.
If implemented as wholly-private or joint venture projects, they will
implemented using one of the following approaches:
i.
generally be
The private park developer is responsible for developing, financing, and managing
the Tier 2 common infrastructure projects and recovers its costs through charges to
park tenants
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
12-18
Tier 2 projects are procured through an independent third party to the extent they
can operate as standalone businesses and recover their costs through charges to
park tenants
iii.
These approaches may limit government spending and help it achieve its objective of
maximizing external funding for SIP. However, their feasibility will depend on the final
phasing plan for the park and interdependencies among its component projects.
Consequently, the government and its advisors should test the viability of these approaches
through early discussions with infrastructure developers, investors, and lenders.
Industrial Plants
Industrial plants planned for SIP include the following process facilities: coking plant, copper
smelter, iron ore pelletizing plant, DRI/HBI plant, cement plant, and coal gasification plant
These facilities will likely be implemented as either wholly-privately owned or joint venture
projects on a concession basis if these projects can achieve the levels of required return on
investment necessary to attract private sector investors. Process facility concessionaires will
be responsible for arranging project financing, which may be provided on a corporate credit
or project financing basis. (Because construction of the cement plant is planned to occur
early in the implementation period before there is significant demand for product, it may
need significant GoM support if implemented as a concession.)
12.8.
FINANCING STRUCTURES
SIP projects may be financed on balance sheet with full recourse to the borrower or on a
project finance basis with limited recourse to the borrower. A balance sheet financing can
be structured either on a sovereign credit basis (for projects where the GoM is the borrower
and guarantees repayment) or on a corporate credit basis (if a private company or joint
venture will be the borrower and guarantees repayment). In a limited recourse financing, a
special purpose company is generally created to be the borrower. Repayment would be
secured by project revenues and underpinned by a network of contracts. Because a project
financing is a contractually and commercially complex structure, use of such financing is
only advisable in countries with a strong legal and regulatory framework. Even then, the
greater complexity creates greater risk that the financing will not be successful and may
result in a longer and more expensive development process. These considerations should
be evaluated against GoM objectives for the project. Potential financing structures for SIP
projects are described below.
Sovereign Financing Structure
Typically, projects that are implemented using a wholly-government owned ownership model
are financed using a sovereign financing structure. In this structure, the government
provides the funding from internal sources or borrows the money from external sources to
fund the project. The credit assessment and documentation process is greatly simplified
because the lenders rely on the creditworthiness of the government for loan repayment. In
most cases this approach could significantly accelerate park development and
implementation by eliminating the extensive negotiations with investors and lenders typically
required for a complex project financing. Moreover, these projects could be sold to the
private sector after demand ramp-up, allowing the government to recover its investment.
The cash generated from this transaction could be reinvested in other infrastructure projects
or used to pay down sovereign debt.
12-19
12-20
Figure 12.4
Preliminary Commercial Structure: Limited Recourse Financing
SIP Industrial Plant
Project financing is a broadly used term for a financing structure used to fund concessions
(BOO, BOT, and other commercial structures specifically addressed in the 2010 Concession
Law) and various types of public-private partnership projects. Figure 12.4 shows a
commercial structure for an industrial plant project in Mongolia structured as a concession
with limited recourse financing. To attract international limited recourse financing, project
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
12-21
12-22
PROs
CONs
SOVEREIGN
LIMITED RECOURSE
CORPORATE
Less documentation
required and shorter
timeframe
GoM controls process
Useful for projects
without a well-defined
(international standard)
off-take contract
Preferable for nonproject-specific
infrastructure in and
around the park
Limitations on sovereign
debt capacity need to
allocate wisely
May be limited by IMF
or other sovereign
borrowing restrictions
Often lacks rigorous
credit analysis and
private sector discipline,
resulting in poorly
structured and
uneconomic projects
Some industrial parks have used a private sector/government joint venture to align interests
and achieve government objectives, including greater influence over project implementation
and technology transfer. This has worked successfully for other industrial parks, for
example, at Jubail Industrial City in Saudi Arabia, where a new company (SABIC) was
formed to partner with international oil and petrochemical companies to develop refineries
and petrochemical complexes. From limited capabilities at its creation in the 1970s, SABIC
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
12-23
set forth in the Important Notice.
12.9.
As a first-of-a-kind project for Mongolia, achieving a successful outcome for SIP will require
comprehensive planning and a systematic development process to maintain cost and
schedule targets and to achieve credibility with the targeted international investors and
lenders that will be approached to finance, construct, and operate the park. These potential
investors and lenders will require that many of these activities are in process or that
development is proceeding on schedule before they will give serious consideration to a role
in SIP. A preliminary development schedule showing some of the typical tasks required to
complete park development is shown as Figure 12.5 (at the end of this section), with major
development tasks (highlighted in green) discussed below.
At this early stage in the SIP planning process, this preliminary schedule is indicative of the
types of major activities that need to be accomplished, their possible duration, and their
sequencing. This is an aggressive schedule that, among other things, depends on timely
action by GoM in performing activities in its scope. It should not be construed to be a
guarantee of the time period required for any specific development activity. Moreover, the
master plan, commercial structure, and financing plan for SIP will continue to be refined
during the development process and may result in significant changes to assumed
development activities. Given the large number of unknowns at this juncture, it is not
possible to offer a more definitive schedule. After the GoM has hired its PMC and legal and
commercial advisors, this schedule should be reviewed and updated.
Master Plan Approval
After Bechtel completes the SIP Master Plan Report, the GoM will review the report and
make a decision regarding whether to proceed with development of SIP, and confirming the
industrial plants and infrastructure to be included. Parliamentary approval of the SIP scope,
projected to occur in the second quarter of 2012, would be a key milestone to signify the
GoMs sponsorship of the SIP development program.
Create Regulatory and Legal Framework
Following parliamentary approval of SIP, the GoM should engage its legal advisor in a
comprehensive review of all existing Mongolian laws pertaining to PPPs, zoning and
regulation of industrial parks, investment and tax incentives for investors in industrial parks,
and labors laws (in particular, provisions regarding expatriate workers) to identify and
recommend amendments and/or new legislation required to enable and promote the
development of new industrial parks in Mongolia over the next several decades. Calibrating
enabling legislation and incentives to what is being offered by industrial parks and SEZs in
other countries should help the GoM to attract world-class industrial operators and
international investors to SIP.
With the assistance of its legal advisor, the GoM should also draft a new law for the
formation of a new industrial park regulatory agency and a new park development agency to
administer the development of industrial parks.
Create Institutional Framework
To promote industrial parks as the key to its long-term national industrial development
strategy, the GoM should consider forming two new government agencies: a regulatory
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
12-24
12-25
Work with GoM to develop terms of reference and other materials required to solicit
bids for various advisors and consultants required to support all elements (technical,
commercial, financial, etc.) of the SIP development process, and then manage the
consultants and advisors on behalf of GoM
Continually update and refine the SIP Master Plan concept based on input received
from other consultants and advisors during the development period
Commercial Advisor
The commercial advisor would be engaged shortly after the PMC is brought on and would
be responsible for developing the project commercial structure and preliminary financing
plan. The commercial advisor would be responsible for the following tasks:
Together with GoM and the PMC, conduct meetings with targeted lenders and
investors
Prepare detailed business plan for SIP based on feedback received during lender
and investor meetings
Work with GoM and other advisors to develop request for qualification and request
for proposal documents that will be used to solicit proposals from targeted private
sector companies that will develop the park and the industrial plant facilities
Work with GoM and other advisors to evaluate proposals and recommend preferred
bidders for park development and industrial plant concessions
Legal Advisor
There are two distinct scopes of work for the legal advisor which may be performed by one
or more firms.
The initial scope of work entails a comprehensive review of existing Mongolian laws relating
to public-private partnerships, zoning and regulation of industrial parks, investment and tax
incentives for investors in industrial parks, and labor laws regarding expatriate workers. As
part of this review, recommendations would be made for amendments or new laws required
to enable and promote the development of new industrial parks in Mongolia over the next
several decades.
Additional development period legal advisory support will be required for the following tasks:
Together with Mongolian counsel, act on behalf of the GoM to draft and support
negotiations of various contract documents, including the SIP Development
Agreement (the agreement between the park development agency and the private
sector developer specifying the terms and conditions by which the park will be
developed) and industrial plant concession agreements.
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
12-26
Sounding out the financial markets on the commercial approach devised by GoM
and the commercial advisor
Developing a final financing plan that optimizes the mix of debt, equity, and donor aid
to be pursued for a project
Preparing the final PIM that will accompany all lender, equity, and donor applications
12-27
12-28
12-29
These are all key steps in the overall commercial development of SIP and, as such, their
progress will dictate the overall SIP project development schedule. Together, these critical
path activities are projected to require an overall duration of a little over 3 years from start to
finish.
Additionally, as the EPC Summary Schedule in Section 9 indicates, the following activities
are on the critical path for ensuring that the cement plant can be completed in time to supply
cement for construction of the other industrial plants and infrastructure at SIP:
GoM commitment of interim funding for cement plant
Completion of geotechnical studies
Completion of programmatic EIA for SIP
12-30
12-31
!
"!# $! %
&- )$#"%"#$,)
!
%
%/
."
!01 .
."
!$
/ .
8 + /4#9 &",55 1
: !#9 4(/,55 ?
?/)1 1
$&#$ (&#$
#,)#(,)&
!
"&/. ".
8 !"&95 "6
!
!B06B
. / .=9/ //.>
!,5
"..
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
12-32
APPENDIX 12.A
Many countries have created Special Economic Zones to achieve key elements of their
economic strategy. While the details of each countrys SEZ program may differ, all
programs share common elements that have contributed to their success: strong policy and
institutional frameworks; a package of investment incentives; and well-designed
implementation models to ensure the early and continued success of their programs.
This appendix includes case studies for the following countries (with project summaries for
specific SEZs in these countries where Bechtel has had a significant development or
program management role):
India
Peoples Republic of China (with Nanhai Petrochemical Complex Project Summary)
Saudi Arabia (with Jubail Industrial Complex I & II Project and Ras Al Khair Industrial
City Summaries)
Singapore/Jurong
Thailand
United Arab Emirates (with Khalifa Port and Industrial Zone Project Summary)
Vietnam
These case studies have been compiled from numerous publicly available sources and
augmented, when possible, by relevant Bechtel project experience. The case studies are
included for information purposes only. The outcomes in these case studies are not
indicative of any outcome for SIP and are not a guarantee of similar results.
INDIA
Background
After its independence from the United Kingdom in 1947, India pursued a socialist, centrist
economic strategy. This strategy, influenced by its colonial experience, tended toward
protectionism with a strong emphasis on import substitution and state-controlled
industrialization. Indias first prime minister, Jawarharlal Nehru (1947-1964) believed that
India should be a self-sufficient country with economic development determined through a
central planning model. However, insulating Indian companies from outside competition
stifled innovation and diminished product quality.
After several decades of slow economic growth and a serious balance of payment crisis in
1991 which required IMF intervention, India embarked on a more focused effort to transform
government economic policy from socialism to capitalism. In July of 1991, India committed
itself to major economic reforms. The government wanted to create a competitive economy
that would be open to foreign trade and investment. To achieve this, the government
dismantled much of its antiquated industrial licensing and permitting system and reduced its
role in the air transport, infrastructure and telecommunications sectors all of which were now
opened to foreign investment. As a result, total foreign investment in India grew from $132
million in 1991-92 to $5.3 billion in 1995-96.
India also experimented with Special Economic Zones (SEZs) to try and replicate Chinas
success with SEZs and to leverage Indias natural comparative advantages of extremely low
labor costs, a huge domestic consumer market (1.2 billion in 2011), several deep water
ports, an educated populace with a high aptitude for technology and a well-developed legal
system based on English law. Similar to Chinas SEZ model, India provided the utilities and
infrastructure to support its SEZs which were organized as industrial clusters to achieve
synergies and scale economies that could attract private investment.
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
12-33
SEZ development can be through the government (federal or state), the private
sector or through a public-private joint venture
12-34
SEZs are deemed to be outside the customs territory of India and thus SEZs are free
from customs examination of their cargoes
Exemption from: excise duties, customs duties, import duties, payroll taxes, stamp
duties, securities transactions tax and central sales tax
Reduced service tax, dividend distribution tax and capital gains tax for asset
transfers
Manufacturing units receive 100% tax deduction on export profits for the first five
years and 50% for the next five years
Implementation Model
The India SEZ implementation model is essentially a master developer real estate model in
which an SEZ developer acquires a site and then, together with any co-development
partners, proceeds to develop the site and supporting infrastructure required to attract
private sector companies to set up units at the SEZ and recover their costs through charges
to the units setting up in the SEZ.
Key Lessons from Indias SEZ Program
Similar to China, Vietnam and Thailand, Indias economy has benefitted significantly
from adopting the SEZ model
Simplifying the license and permit process and the individual SEZ and unit approval
process has expedited SEZ formation
FDI reached $30 billion in 2011 but India has faced some corruption scandals in
recent years and this, coupled with the worldwide economic downturn in the past few
years has dropped expected GDP growth to about 7% from the 9% level in previous
years
The success of SEZs and its implication for government revenues has precipitated
disagreements between the Commerce Ministry and Finance Ministry related to the
incentive package
Strong opposition to relaxed labor laws in the SEZs by certain political parties
resulted in a more stringent labor law regime and reduced the appeal of SEZs to
private sector investors
State governments often acquired land for the SEZs through compulsory acquisition
leading to strong resistance from agricultural interests and revised legislation to
address this issue
12-35
12-36
The provision of inexpensive land and a degree of protection for private property
Reduced corporate tax rates and income tax exemptions for foreign nationals
working in SEZs
Ability to develop municipal laws and regulations along the lines of national laws
The ability to enter into enforceable labor contracts and to fire underperforming
employees
Implementation Model
The locations of the first four SEZs were chosen because they were port cities and because
of their proximity to the Chinese export markets of Hong Kong, Macao, Taiwan and
Singapore. These markets were also Chinas source of investment capital, technology and
management know-how. Chinas immediate goals were to: transfer high tech industries to
China along with management expertise, create skilled employment for its citizens, earn
foreign exchange through the promotion of exports, and create strong economic ties with
Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan and Singapore.
Because the Chinese government does not provide resources to support the SEZs, the
provincial governments and their SEZs are responsible for creating the necessary
foundation to attract international investors. Consequently, in Shenzhen the army had to be
brought in to help build some of the basic infrastructure and joint ventures were formed with
Hong Kong developers to provide housing and other basic facilities.
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
12-37
SEZs were given greater political and economic autonomy than the rest of the
country which led to accelerated development
Chinese SEZs were successful and evolved over several decades because of a
strong commitment to reform and pragmatism from top Chinese leaders. The
government followed a gradualism approach and adapted new forms of SEZs as it
learned from its successes and mistakes
To encourage foreign firms to invest, the SEZs had various preferential policies
including inexpensive land, tax breaks, rapid customs clearance, the ability to
repatriate profits and capital investments, duty free imports of raw materials and
other favorable policies to attract and train skilled labor
12-38
12-39
Implementation Phase
After contract award, BSF monitored the EP/EPC detailed design, procurement and
construction activities. BSF was thus responsible for management of the EP/EPC contracts
to assure that contractors met scheduled targets. Major process units at the site were either
executed on an LSTK basis by international and Chinese contractors or the international
and Chinese contractors provided EP with the construction managed by BSF. In addition,
BSF provided EPC for certain balance of plant and other key facilities at the site.
SAUDI ARABIA
Background
Until the mid-1970s, Saudi Arabia was relatively unindustrialized. Its vast oil and gas
reserves were used almost exclusively for oil production. Gas was simply flared at the wellhead. The rise in the price of oil from $2 to $30 per barrel during the early 1970s created
the opportunity for Saudi to utilize its flared gas to create a new petrochemical industry. By
the late 1970s, The Kingdom embarked on a long term vigorous industrial and social
program with a series of five-year plans. The plans entailed capturing the gas for use as a
domestic energy source, and to develop a primary and secondary petrochemical industry for
domestic use and for export.
To implement its new industrial strategy, the Kingdom formed the Saudi Royal Commission
in 1975. The purpose of the Commission was to plan, promote, construct , manage and
regulate Saudis first two industrial cities at Jubail and Yanbu, In 1976, the Royal
Commission formed a government-owned development company, the Saudi Basic
Industries Corporation (SABIC) to coordinate, implement and develop its petroleum-based
industrial strategy by forming joint ventures with foreign technology companies. Saudi
Aramco, the national oil and gas company, designed, built and operated the gas gathering
system used to supply gas to Jubail and Yanbu for their industrial projects.
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
12-40
12-41
12-42
The provision of loans and equity capital under favorable terms and conditions
Foreign investors can benefit from socialized funding institutions such as: the Arab
Fund for Economic and Social Development; Arab Monetary Fund; Arab Trade
Financing Program, Arab Investment Guarantee Corp and the Islamic Development
Bank
Implementation Model
Saudi Arabia has implemented its industrial development strategy through a mixed
government-private sector industrialization model. This explicitly recognized the huge
investment required to enable development of remote industrial cities but also supported the
Saudi governments objective of technology transfer, capacity building and skills
development. Under this model, the government established and financed the power
stations, water, waste water treatment plants, seawater cooling facilities, gas pipeline,
desalinization plants and infrastructure for its initial industrial cities at Jubail and Yanbu. The
Commission was responsible for construction and operation of all the basic infrastructure
facilities, utilities and all public services needed in the industrial parks and surrounding
residential community other than the gas gathering system built by ARAMCO. All of the
supportive utilities and infrastructure in Saudi industrial parks are currently owned by the
Kingdom. Rents are charged to plant investors to use these facilities. The Commission
hired the PMC contractors for both parks. Bechtel was the PMC contractor for Jubail and still
is today. The processing facilities in the industrial cities were developed and owned through
joint ventures with SABIC.
SABIC is 70% owned by the Saudi government. The remaining 30% is owned by Saudis
and citizens of other gulf countries. SABIC is now one of the worlds leading petrochemical
companies. In 2010, it was recognized by Fortune Magazine as the fourth largest diversified
chemical company in the world. It is among the lowest cost producers of petrochemicals
because of its access to Saudi Arabias vast petroleum and gas reserves. SABIC has five
core business sectors: basic chemicals, intermediates, polymers, fertilizers and metals.
SABIC oversees some 16 affiliated companies which, in the 70s and 80s were set up as
joint ventures with Dow Chemical, Exxon, Mitsubishi, Korf-Stahl and other major
international companies.
SABIC began work on both Jubail and Yanbu in 1977. It formed joint venture partnerships
with major international petrochemical companies for the purpose of establishing its
industrial operations. Its partners provided equity, technology, training, management skills
and international marketing support in exchange for access to Saudis gas feedstock,
subsidized infrastructure rents, fiscal, regulatory and financial incentives and government
financing if needed. SABICs first manufacturing affiliate joint venture was with Mitsubishi
Gas Chemical Company. It is called AR-RAZI, also known as the Saudi Methanol
Company. SABIC formed many other 50-50 joint venture partnerships over the years.
These partnerships were engaged in the production of fertilizer, ammonia, urea, sulfuric acid
and melamine. During the late 1970s, SABIC formed partnerships with Bahraini groups and
it formed Hadeed, the Saudi Iron and Steel Company.
By the 1990s, SABIC had a diversified base of 21 affiliated joint venture companies
manufacturing some 20 petrochemical-based product groups in several industrial cities
throughout Saudi Arabia.
Key lessons from Saudi Arabias Industrial City Program
Saudi Arabia successfully took advantage of its indigenous raw materials and
minerals to maximize its comparative advantage and to industrialize the country
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
12-43
Significant Saudi government support for industrial park common utilities and
infrastructure was key to their success
The basic development model employed by the Kingdom was the formation of
government-private joint ventures between SABIC and private foreign technology
providers
The Kingdom focused on improving social welfare of its people through the process
of industrialization
Jubail I & II and Ras Al Khair Minerals Industrial City (RIC) are industrial cities implemented
under Saudi Arabias industrial cities program. A description of elements of these projects
that have implications for the Sainshand Industrial Park follows.
Jubail Industrial Complex (Jubail I & II)
The Jubail Industrial Complex
In 1975, the small fishing village of Jubail was designated as the first site for the Kingdoms
new industrial strategy. Over 40 years later, the Jubail Industrial Complex, which is still
expanding, is one of the largest civil engineering projects in the world. Jubail now covers
over 8,000 hectares, has 19 main factories and 136 ancillary installations. The Jubail
industrial complex consists of petrochemical plants, fertilizer plants, a plastic plant, a
methanol plant, steel and aluminum works, two ports and support industries all under the
supervision of SABIC. Jubail now contains 40 primary and secondary industrial plants
including refineries, petrochemical and steel plants and has facilities to house 375,000
people. Jubail currently accounts for more than 7% of the Kingdoms GDP. It
accommodates a Royal Naval base and the worlds largest desalinization plant which
supplies 50% of the countrys drinking water.
A new expansion of the original Jubail City, called Jubail II, is currently being built. This will
add a second industrial city to the complex to accommodate some 22 new primary
industries. Phases I and 2 of Jubail II have now been completed and phases 3 and 4 will
continue through 2022. The project calls for the expansion of the King Fahd Port, gas
pipeline refurbishment, increased capacity of the cooling system and new desalinization
plants. As with the earlier works, the Royal Commission is developing the projects with
Bechtel as the PMC contractor. Bechtel through its joint venture company, Saudi Arabian
Bechtel Company (SABCO) has been the PMC contractor at Jubail since 1977.
Environmental Quality
From the beginning of the Kingdoms industrialization and economic development program
there was a strong commitment to protect and enhance the natural environment. The
Kingdom did extensive environmental assessment studies related to both the construction
and the long term operation of the two industrial cities. The Kingdom has strict guidelines
and regulations related to domestic and industrial waste water treatment and discharge and
control of air borne pollutants. It recycles waste water, has organic waste composting
programs, environmentally conscious zoning laws and strict building code regulations.
Formerly windswept desert areas now provide homes to large populations of birds and other
wildlife while providing recreational and environmental amenities to Jubails residents.
Transportation
Although Jubail has three small airports, all are used for commercial transport. The
residents of Jubail are served by King Fahd International Airport in Dammam, about 70 km
away. Jubail is connected with other cities by two major highways, the Dhahran-Jubail
Highway and the Abu Hadriyah Highway. A branch of the Saudi Landbridge Project railway
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
12-44
Making Saudi Arabia a regional hub for the metals and minerals industry thereby
becoming a world class competitor in these markets
The RIC concept builds on a plan by Maaden, the Saudi Arabian Mining Company, to
construct a phosphate and aluminum complex at Ras Al Zawr. In 2008 the Royal
Commission agreed to participate by coordinating the downstream industries and providing
an overall regional structure for community facilities and other infrastructure. To support this
effort the Saudi Arabian Bechtel Company was engaged to prepare a master plan for the
industrial minerals city and to provide a framework to facilitate stakeholder outreach to
Kingdom stakeholders. The Royal Commission also engaged KPMG to analyze and
recommend the industrial mix for the minerals complex. Consequently the planning process
entailed two distinct activities: industrial planning focusing on the metals and minerals
processes to determine the appropriate industrial mix for RIC; and physical planning do
develop a plan for the complex and an implementation strategy.
The Recommended Industrial Plan
The RIC concept builds on the original Maaden concept with core phosphate and aluminum
plants but integrates them into a strategically designed complex that includes a series of
industrial clusters. The clusters were chosen to leverage indigenous Saudi Arabian mineral
resources and in response to the interests and needs of Kingdom stakeholders. Key
clusters planned include:
Primary phosphate
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
12-45
Primary aluminum
Downstream phosphate
Downstream aluminum
Industrial minerals
Automotive
Building materials
Metal fabrication
Support cluster
The master plan will be implemented in phases: phase 1 will include the first 10 years of the
project and will include site preparation, infrastructure development and initial construction
of the industrial infrastructure with follow-on phases to support expansion
Current Status
The original master plan has undergone two revisions and is currently being implemented.
Bechtel through its Saudi Arabian JV, SABCO, is now managing the front-end engineering
design for the initial phase of the RIC master plan program.
SINGAPORE
Background
Singapore, a city state in Southeast Asia, is a parliamentary republic situated on a small
island (26 miles long by 14 miles wide) located south of the Malay Peninsula and north of
Indonesia. Its legal system is based on English common law. It was founded by the British in
the 19th century as an import-export depot (entrept) for the British Empire, primarily to
service British trade with China and India. Singapore gained its independence from the UK
in 1963 and then merged with Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak to form the Federation of
Malaysia. Disputes with Malaysias ruling party and cultural clashes between Malaysians
and Singaporeans soon led Singapore to separate from Malaysia in 1965 and become an
independent republic.
Singapore entered nationhood with a mixed legacy with a small and inefficient industrial
sector. Consequently, the countrys early industrial policy sought to promote industrialization
and to diversify the economy away from its role as an import-export depot. Singapores key
strategy since independence has been to adopt a pro-business, pro-foreign investment
export-oriented economic model combined with state-directed industrialization through
government-owned corporations. In the early years, it relied upon its most abundant
resource, cheap labor. It used the concept of industrial zones successfully to concentrate its
utilities and infrastructure in those areas where industrial estates would be built. Public
housing was also provided nearby for the workers. Today, there are over 40 industrial
estates in Singapore.
Because of its limited land mass and its lack of indigenous minerals and agricultural land,
Singapore focused on using its one abundant resource, cheap labor, to drive industrial
growth. Facing severe unemployment and a housing crisis in 1963, Singapores Economic
Development Board (EDB) formulated an economic strategy to promote and build its
manufacturing sector. First, it concentrated on import substitution as its primary strategy but
shortly thereafter it added an export strategy as well. Industrial estates were established as
a key element in Singapores industrialization strategy, especially in Jurong, with favorable
legal and policy frameworks to encourage foreign investment.
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
12-46
The professionalism of the EDB and its role as a one-stop shop for investors
Political stability
Pro-business government
12-47
Under the Startup Enterprise Development Scheme (SEED), investors can apply to
the Singapore Economic Development Board for equity financing. The EDB will
match each dollar of equity provided by the investor (capped at $1 million)
12-48
Under its Tax Incentive for Angel Investors Scheme, a Singaporean angel investor
can receive up to $500,000 in tax deductions
Tax incentives are negotiable depending upon nature of business and the sector
Implementation Model
Because of its limited land area and the need to optimize land use and industrial
development, Singapore has embraced state-directed industrialization wherein the EDB and
JTC together with other development organizations carefully plan and mange industrial
estate development. The estates are developed with the necessary infrastructure, logistical
connectivity, entertainment and recreational facilities, schools and other amenities to
operate as fully self-contained urban entities.
Key Lessons from Singapores Development
Despite its limited natural resources, Singapore has become one of Asias most
dynamic economies by leveraging its inexpensive labor, deep water ports and
proximity to Asian markets and by providing a conducive environment for foreign
investors including substantial regulatory and fiscal incentives
Singapore has made significant progress over the past 50 years and now has a
highly educated workforce with a very high standard of living and virtually no
unemployment.
THAILAND
Background
In international surveys, Thailand consistently ranks among the most attractive foreign
investment locations. In 2006 the World Bank ranked Thailand as the 4 th easiest country in
Asia in which to do business and the 20th easiest in the world. The countrys well-defined
investment policies have focused on liberalization and encouraging free trade and
investment.
In the early 1960s, the Thai economy was vulnerable to cyclical swings because it was
overly dependent on a few primary export commodities (rice, rubber, tin and teak). To
address this, it decided to pursue a policy of economic expansion and diversification using
industrial estates. Beginning with its first national development plan in 1961 and with all of
its five-year plans thereafter, the government followed a consistent policy of encouraging
and effectively managing private enterprise and investment to achieve it economic goals.
Thailands primary natural advantages are: cheap labor, ports in the south and a stable
government. It has been able to leverage these advantages to attract significant foreign
investment to its shores over the past fifty years. As of October 2010, the government had
established 42 industrial estates located in 15 provinces. Several of these are JVs with the
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
12-49
12-50
Special Economic Zones will not be subject to zoning laws and can specify their own
city planning
Properties owned or leased in the estates are not subject to local taxes
Up to 100% foreign ownership of land which can be used as security for loans
Implementation Model
There are three different types of special economic zones in Thailand: industrial estates,
industrial zones and industrial parks. Each of these is defined as a Serviced Industrial
Land Plot and must be situated on a site of at least 200 acres with 60% to 70% of the site
set aside for factory usage. They operate on a real estate model in which private companies
authorized to set up on the site can acquire a plot of land to support their industrial
operations.
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
12-51
Over the last 50 years the government has consistently followed a planned
development policy which has been highly successful in attracting foreign
investment, diversifying the Thai economy and in creating new jobs for Thais
throughout all the provinces.
The UAE is a rich country with GDP per capita exceeding $66,000; the third highest per
capita GDP in the world and the second highest in the Middle East. Over the past forty
years, the UAE has transformed itself from a subsistence economy to one of the most
prosperous and highly advanced societies in the world. The UAE experienced explosive
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
12-52
12-53
Implementation Model
UAEs basic model for achieving its industrialization and diversification goals was to
establish FTZs in clusters supported by world-class infrastructure and utilities provided by
the government. FTZs concentrated on building light industries and industries tied to
consumer products and tourism. The FTZs were built in strategic locations, next to
established or new deep water ports. The FTZs warehouse imported consumer goods and
have companies specializing in biotechnology research and telecommunications and many
other light industries. Over the past three decades, the UAE has become a hub for
processing or importing consumer goods exported throughout the Persian Gulf. In recent
years, it has been developing heavy industrial parks (zones).
Following the example of its neighbor, Saudi Arabia, the UAE has embarked on a long term
development strategy centered on establishing a world-class transportation network (ports
and roads), a modern telecommunications system in numerous special economic zones to
attract foreign investors and a business friendly environment. In addition to its mineral
resources and its ability to afford significant infrastructure investments, the UAE also has a
natural comparative advantage in having several deep water ports on the Gulf for easy
international transport of its goods.
Today, there are over 20,000 companies operating in 21 free zones in the UAE. The largest
FTZs by number of companies are as follows:
12-54
UAE has used its oil wealth to create new industries and economic diversification
Building FTZs near world class port facilities also enhances their attractiveness to
foreign investors
UAE FTZs have simple and expedient licensing procedures which is of great value to
foreign investors
Providing foreign investors a myriad of fiscal, regulatory and monetary incentives has
been one of the primary keys to UAEs success in developing the country
12-55
Acquire, operate, maintain, manage and develop all ports, shipyards, jetties,
pathways, connecting bridges and related infrastructure
12-56
Cooperate with government authorities operating at ports and to provide them with
necessary assistance and facilities
Carry out feasibility studies related to projects, planning and development of ports
Consequently, APDC was responsible for developing KPIZ and engaged International
Bechtel Company Limited (IBCLTD) in 2006 through a competitive tender to be the projects
program manager (PM). Bechtel Civil, the infrastructure arm of the Bechtel group of
companies, will do the work on behalf of IBCLTD. Bechtel is supporting ADPC in the
development of KPIZ with the primary responsibility for management and co-ordination of
the master planning, design and construction of the port and associated infrastructure. In
addition, Bechtels services will include development of the construction strategy and
development phasing and control of the master plan for the development.
The joint venture company, HPA/Halcrow was engaged to prepare the master plan and an
environmental impact assessment for the project. The first port design and construction
project was awarded to Khalifa Port Marine Consortium (KPMC). In May of 2011, Hyundai
Engineering and Construction was awarded a $329 million contract for project management,
design, procurement and construction, testing and commissioning of all civil works
associated with the offshore terminal facility.
VIETNAM
Background
Vietnam today is a single party constitutional republic controlled by the Communist Party.
The country has limited natural resources consisting of coal, crude oil, zinc, copper, silver,
gold, manganese and iron. Over the past 30 years Vietnam has made a remarkable
transition from a centrally planned industrial command economy to a market-oriented
industrial economy with active private sector participation. Its per capita income rose from
$220 in 1994 to $1,168 in 2010. In the early 1980s, virtually no Vietnamese industries were
capable of selling their products in Europe or North America. Thirty years later Vietnamese
exports have increased twenty-fold and its industrial products are now sold worldwide.
Much of its success is due to government decisions in the late 1980s to remove barriers to
private enterprise while formulating an industrial policy that would complement industry in
China rather than compete with it. The first barriers it removed were restrictions on imports
and access to foreign exchange. This was followed by policies designed to create a
favorable environment for foreign direct investment and the formation of private enterprise
companies. In recent years, subsidies have been decreased for State Owned Enterprises
(SOEs) to make them more market competitive. Vietnam still holds tight control over major
aspects of its economy but it has plans to continue its private sector economic reforms in
key areas of its economy and to ultimately privatize all of its SOEs.
Coping with competition from China is one of Vietnams biggest challenges. It is clearly
unwise to try and compete directly with China so Vietnam has positioned itself as a
complementary producer rather than a direct competitor. Its strategy is to target assemblytype manufacturing, concentrating on electronics, motorbikes, automobiles and the
production of components and parts for these industries. Vietnams work force is
particularly suited for this type of labor-intensive assembly work. The cost of Vietnamese
labor is often cheaper than Chinas. Vietnams natural comparative advantage is its cheap
labor, its cheap and plentiful land for industrial development and its many deep water ports
along its coast for conducting import and export businesses.
Special Economic Zones (SEZs) in Asia have been used repeatedly as a model for
economic growth since China first launched its four coastal SEZs in 1979. The SEZ model,
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
12-57
They are supported by the government and the private sector who work in tandem to
create industries and local jobs
The cluster effect provides significant efficiencies and scale economies regarding
supporting infrastructure and clustering synergies that act as catalysts for new
development and job creation
Significant subsidies and investment incentives are strong inducements for foreign
investors to locate in the SEZs
Vietnams SEZs are implemented in the form of industrial parks. By the end of June, 2011
there were 260 industrial parks in Vietnam occupying an area of 72,000 hectares. These
parks are in 57 cities across the country. Over 3,600 projects have been built in these parks
by companies from 92 different countries representing a total foreign investment of $43
billion. The government intends to build 91 new industrial parks by 2015.
According to the Asian Development Bank, over the past 20 years, Vietnam has been one of
the fastest growing economies in Asia with an annual average GDP growth rate averaging
7.1% between 1990 and 2009. The formation of industrial parks proved to be the solution to
industrialize Vietnam because of the inherent synergies and efficiencies that are present in
such industrial clusters. The object of government policy has been and continues to be to
attract foreign investment, reduce poverty, diversify the economy and create domestic jobs.
It has been highly successful in doing so.
Policy and Institutional Framework
Vietnams policy framework regarding its industrial parks is captured in a number of different
laws and regulations set at the national level and applying throughout the country. In 1996,
in accordance with its 1992 constitution, Vietnam passed its Law on Foreign Investment.
This law made provision for foreign direct investment in Vietnam. It provided legal
protections for investors, provided simple and transparent procedures for investing in
Vietnam, and specified the types of PPP models that could be employed including joint
ventures or pure private sector models. It also provided different incentives for different
regions of the country; the poorer the region, the greater the incentives.
The Law on Foreign Investments is administered by the Ministry of Planning and Investment
but the approval process for foreign investment has been decentralized to the provinces for
certain types of investment. Each province has a Department of Planning and Investment
(DPI) which is its principal investment promotion agency. The DPI reports to the Peoples
Committee of the province.
Vietnams Decree Promulgating the Regulation of Industrial Zones, Export Processing
Zones and High-Tech Zones contains the rules and regulations governing special economic
zones in Vietnam. In general, zones must be included in the Governments master plan, in
which case the provincial peoples committee is responsible for preparing a feasibility study
which specifies needed infrastructure inside and outside the zone, the nature of the
industries that will locate in the zone, environmental and labor issues and the financing plan
for supporting infrastructure. Typically, zones are wholly or partially owned by the provincial
government and managed through a provincial industrial zone management committee. All
zones require the approval of the Prime Minister.
In August of 1999, Vietnam passed its Law of Enterprises which provided for the
establishment, management, organization and operation of limited liability companies,
shareholding companies, partnerships and other forms of private enterprise. This law also
provided for SOEs converting to private forms of business. The enterprise laws of 2000 and
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
12-58
Land is provided free for seven years beginning with project operation, and eleven to
fifteen years in areas with extremely difficult socioeconomic conditions
The corporate tax rate is 10% (instead of the 25% standard tax rate) and this applies
for a period of 15 years; some projects in certain depressed areas are provided
complete tax exemption for four years of operations
A 50% reduction in personal income tax for both domestic and foreign workers
Expedited and easy visa process for foreign workers and their families
Implementation Model
The modern Vietnamese economic model is based on the Chinese approach with the
decentralization of state economic management in favor of provincial and local autonomy.
This is coupled with a market-oriented monetary policy, an outward external economic
relations policy, reliance on the private sector as the engine of economic growth and letting
provincial and privately-owned industries deal directly with the foreign market. This model
has been highly successful in both China and Vietnam.
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
12-59
set forth in the Important Notice.
Vietnamese law requires infrastructure investors to have their own capital for 30% of
the project cost plus the availability of reliable financing. This discourages poorly
capitalized investors.
Adequate supplies of local labor and skilled professionals are required to attract
foreign and local investment.
Readily available, inexpensive land that can be easily supported by existing or new
infrastructure.
12-60
APPENDIX 12.B
Introduction
The Government of Mongolia (GoM) is interested in exploring the use of public-private
partnership (PPP) structures to implement the industrial plants as well as certain outside the
park and inside the park common infrastructure facilities for the Sainshand Industrial Park
(SIP).
To evaluate the suitability of PPP structures for this purpose, we have combined in-house
experience with a review of public sources and literature on PPP structures. This review
included reviews of PPP experience and lessons learned from both mature PPP markets
and emerging economies. In this appendix, we present a general overview of PPP
structures and describe conditions that enable PPPs to deliver their promise, for
consideration by the GoM in the context of planning for SIP.
The PPP Continuum
PPP is a mechanism through which the public and private sectors partner to deliver a
project, a service, or both. It covers a broad spectrum between a fully public model of
delivery and a fully private model. Different forms of PPP vary in terms of the level of public
sector control, ownership and management of the asset, responsibility for financing, and the
allocation of risk between the public and private sectors.
According to the Asian Development Bank (ADB), basic forms of PPP range from service
contracts at the public end of the spectrum, to concessions, including variations of buildown-transfer (BOT) and build-own-operate (BOO) structures at the private end of the
spectrum (see Table 12.B.1, attached). In general, moving from the public end to the
private end of the spectrum transfers more risk and responsibility for project delivery,
operation and maintenance to the private sector. At the same time, the level of public sector
control and influence decreases. With BOT, BOO, and build-own-operate-transfer (BOOT)
structures, the private sector is responsible for development, financing, construction,
ownership, and operation and maintenance of the project, while the public sectors role is
limited to procuring the project and monitoring performance of the private partner against the
terms of its contract with the public sector during the life of the project.
While the motivation for PPP is often to attract private investment that the public sector is
either unable or unwilling to provide, its primary benefit is often the ability to introduce
private sector efficiencies and innovation into the project procurement process. This
requires a competitive selection process to select a preferred bidder to implement the
project with the support of third party technical, financial and legal advisors, usually over an
extensive period of time. Consequently, success depends on significant preparatory work,
including upfront investment in physical (e.g., power, transportation, water,
telecommunications, etc.), legal (regulatory and legal framework) and commercial (proforma agreements, etc.) infrastructure. PPP experience in mature markets such as
Australia, the E.U., Canada and the U.S. shows that private financing typically comes at a
higher cost than public financing. Therefore, PPPs involving private financing deliver good
value (value for money) only when private sector efficiencies and the ability to manage
project risks overcome their somewhat higher structuring and financing costs.
Getting the Most Out of PPPs
While used extensively around the world, PPP is not the best model for project delivery in
every country and for every situation. Even countries that have extensive PPP programs
evaluate the merits of PPP vis--vis other delivery options for each project they procure,
while the success of ongoing PPPs is a matter of frequent review and much public debate.
In every case, the government should do a cost-benefit analysis to see what commercial
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
12-61
12-62
12-63
MANAGEMENT
CONTRACTS
Management of entire
operation or major
component
LEASE
CONTRACTS
Responsibility for
management,
operations and
specific renewals
CONCESSIONS
Scope
Asset Ownership
Public
Public
Public
Public
Duration
1-3 years
2-5 years
10-15 years
25-30 years
O&M Responsibility
Public
Private
Private
Private
Capital Investment
Public
Public
Public
Private
Commercial Risk
Public
Public
Shared
Private
Overall Level of
Risk Assumed by
Private Sector
Minimal
Minimal/moderate
Moderate
High
Compensation
Terms
Unit prices
Portion of tariff
revenues
Competition
Special Features
Improves
operational and
commercial
efficiency; develops
local staff
Improves operational
and commercial
efficiency; mobilizes
investment finances;
develops local staff
Problems and
Challenges
Requires ability to
administer multiple
contracts and strong
enforcement of contract
laws
Potential conflicts
between public
body which is
responsible for
investments and
the private
operations
How to compensate
investments and ensure
good maintenance
during 5-10 years of
contract
12-64
APPENDIX 12.C
Introduction
Figure 12.C.1, below, shows the types of international financing institutions that may provide
equity and debt financing for the industrial plants, utilities and infrastructure projects that
comprise the Sainshand Industrial Park (SIP). Table 12.C.1, attached, provides a more
detailed listing of the specific international financing agencies and sovereign wealth funds
that the GoM should consider for this financing and summarizes their mission, key policies
and programs and current activities in Mongolia.
This listing is not exhaustive but rather it is a compilation of those sources that could be
employed at SIP for both sovereign and concession projects. Many of the listed agencies
are currently engaged in Mongolia or, likely to be engaged in the future as the country
continues its rapid development. In addition to the listed sources, international developers,
strategic corporate investors and commercial banks may also be interested in considering
financing for projects at Sainshand. All of these potential sources are discussed below.
All financing sources will require that proposed financing requests meet their operating
mandates and their environmental standards. Each agency will have its own environmental
standards which are based on the standards of the World Bank.
Figure 12.C.1
Sources of Debt and Equity Financing
Although the international financing agencies listed all have a development mandate their
financing programs differ and need to be evaluated against the specific use contemplated at
SIP. Collectively the international financing agencies can provide loans in U.S. dollars and
other hard currencies on a fixed or floating rate basis. Other products include local currency
loans, financial guarantees for commercial bank lenders, long-term political and commercial
risk insurance for commercial bank lenders and private investors, equity investments, loan
syndication services, technical and professional assistance grants, feasibility study
financing, concessionary loans and other related products to support host country
development.
SWFs have mandates to achieve adequate risk-adjusted returns on their investments. They
evaluate investments against their own investment criteria. Some SWFs are prepared to
invest in greenfield projects.
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
12-65
12-66
12-67
12-68
12-69
12-70
Entity/Mission
Activity in Mongolia
Development Banks
Development Bank of Mongolia (DBM)
DBM was authorized by Parliament in
February, 2011. It has an initial capital
of $13 million equivalent. The
sovereign will guarantee all its large
loans.
Mission
12-71
Entity/Mission
China Development Bank (CDB)
The CDB is under the jurisdiction of
the China State Council. It is one of the
three policy banks of China.
CDB is responsible for raising funds for
large infrastructure projects both in
China and abroad.
CDB is a large bank with loans
outstanding in 2010 of $687 billion;
twice as much as the World Bank
Mission
CDBs mission is to strengthen Chinas
competitiveness and improve the
living standards of its people in
support of Chinas long term
development strategies and policies.
Activity in Mongolia
CDB lends to some 78 countries
on behalf of the PRC as well as
throughout China.
CDB can co-finance with other
agencies, insurers and
commercial banks.
According to Mongolian
statistics, China invested a total
of $2.3 billion in Mongolia in
2009; 60% of the total foreign
investment in Mongolia.
It is not clear if CDB has
environmental guidelines.
12-72
Entity/Mission
Development Bank of Japan (DBJ)
The DBJ was established in 1947 as the
Rehabilitation Finance Corporation.
Based on a recent law, DBJ will now
provide integrated investment and
loan services to domestic and
international clients.
DBJ intends to privatize its operations
by 2014.
Now, and when it is fully privatized,
DBJ will operate as a highly specialized
investment financial institution that
provides integrated investment and
loan services worldwide.
Activity in Mongolia
DBJs activity in Mongolia is not
known at this time.
DBJ has environmental
standards that have to be met.
DBJ can co-finance with other
agencies, insurers and private
lenders.
Mission
12-73
Entity/Mission
European Bank for Reconstruction and
Development (EBRD)
The EBRD was established in 1991.
The EBRD is owned by 61 countries,
the European Union and the European
Investment Bank. It has operations in
29 countries from Central Europe, the
Western Balkans and Central Asia.
The EBRD invests mainly in private
enterprises. It aims to promote market
economies by helping countries make
the transition to democracy and
capitalism.
Mission
The EBRDs mission is to provide
project financing for banks, industries
and businesses in those countries
committed to democratic principles.
The projects must be environmentally
sound and lead to sustainable
development. EBRD is active from
central Europe to central Asia.
Activity in Mongolia
The EBRD has an office in
Ulaanbaatar.
It is open for business in
Mongolia.
The EBRD wants to support
infrastructure, the
development of a Mongolian
mining sector in a sustainable
manner and it believes that
PPP structures are preferable
to sovereign debt.
EBRD has approved some 36
projects in Mongolia for
approximately Euro 301 million
to date.
Environmental guidelines will
apply.
EBRD will engage in cofinancing structures with other
agencies, insurers and private
lenders.
12-74
Entity/Mission
European Investment Bank
(EIB)/European Investment Fund(EIF)
EIB was established in 1958. It is a
policy driven bank supporting the EUs
priority objectives especially European
integration and assisting developing
countries worldwide.
The EIB is publically owned by
members of the EU.
Outside the EU, its strategy is to
provide financing support to private
sector development, the finance
sector, infrastructure, security of
energy supply and environmental
sustainability.
The European Investment Fund (EIF)
provides concessionary finance to
SMEs worldwide. Primarily, it provides
venture capital loans.
Mission
The mission of the EIB is to support
sound investments which further EU
internal and external policy goals.
Note: The EIB will provide project
finance to Mongolia to the extent
European companies are involved in the
projects. It will not provide equity in
Asia.
Activity in Mongolia
EIB is not yet active in
Mongolia. Mongolia has been
identified as a target country.
EIB can co-finance with other
lenders and agencies and it has
environmental standards that
must be met for each project
supported.
The EIB is currently active in
150 countries outside of the
EU. These countries are in
South East Europe, the
Mediterranean, Asia, Latin
America and Russia.
12-75
Entity/Mission
KfW Bankengruppe
KfW Banking Group (KFW) is a German
government-owned promotional and
development bank. It was formed in
1948 as part of the Marshall Plan.
KfW-IPEX Bank is active in long term
project finance investment in
developing countries associated with
German or European exports and
investment. It supports: ports,
airports, toll roads, bridges, tunnels,
railways, ships, planes, telecom and
energy projects.
DEG will provide a minority equity
stake in projects and provides loans to
private companies in developing
countries.
Activity in Mongolia
Other than DEG, it appears KfW
has not been active in
Mongolia to date.
KfW-IPEX and DEG both have
environmental standards that
apply to project finance
structures.
DEG has made a $6.5 million
equity investment in the
Mongolian Opportunities Fund
(MOF), Mongolias first private
equity fund. The MOF supports
SMEs.
Mission
KfWs mission is to finance
investments by German and European
companies so they may assert
themselves in global markets.
12-76
Entity/Mission
International Finance Corporation (IFC)
The IFC was established in 1956. It is
the largest multilateral source of loan
and equity financing for private sector
projects in the developing world.
The IFC is a member of the World Bank
Group.
The IFC will not consider sovereign
credits.
181 countries are members of the IFC.
The IFC has paid in capital of $2.45
billion.
Mission
The IFCs mission is to promote
sustainable private sector investment
in developing countries.
Note: The IFC cannot participate in
projects that produce significant
amounts of CO2. For other projects, it
can offer a full array of financing
projects. Bechtel visited the IFC office in
Ulaanbaatar in June.
Activity in Mongolia
Mongolia has been a member
of the IFC since 1991.
The IFC is willing to support
development activity in
Mongolia in the following area:
the financial sector; natural
resource sector; the
infrastructure sector with a
focus on power, transport and
water treatment; Industrial
base projects; and
agribusiness.
IFC has detailed environmental
standards that must be met for
a project to be considered.
IFC can co-finance with other
agencies, insurance providers
and commercial bank lenders.
12-77
Entity/Mission
Activity in Mongolia
12-78
Entity/Mission
Trade Development Agency (USTDA)
USTDA is an independent U.S.
Government foreign assistance
agency. Its mission is to help U.S.
companies create jobs by providing
grants to foreign governments and
private sector companies for priority
development projects.
USTDA funds feasibility studies and
project planning activities, pilot
projects, training and reverse trade
missions while creating sustainable
infrastructure and economic growth in
partner countries.
USTDA contracts are only awarded to
U.S. companies.
USTDA links U.S. businesses to export
opportunities by funding project
planning activities, pilot projects, and
reverse trade missions while creating
sustainable infrastructure and
economic growth in partner countries.
Mission
USTDAs mission is to help companies
create U.S. jobs through the export of
U.S. goods and services for priority
development projects in emerging
economies.
Activity in Mongolia
USTDA is open to consider
grants in Mongolia. Recent
USTDA support.
Cement Plant Development A
$250,000 grant to help Alun
International LLC, a privatesector Mongolian company, to
develop a dry-process cement
plant.
Airline Expansion Plan
Technical Assistance USTDA
has awarded grants, totaling
$771,600 to assist Ennis
Airways, a private airline, in
devising a strategic expansion
plan for its commercial aviation
business.
Dundgovi Branch Rail Line A
$391,550 grant is supporting a
feasibility study on a proposed
86-kilometer branch railroad
line.
Environmental guidelines must
be met.
12-79
Entity/Mission
Millennium Challenge Corporation
(MCC)
MCC is a bilateral U.S. foreign aid
agency created in 2004.
MCC forms partnerships with
countries that are committed to good
governance and economic freedom.
MCC provides countries with largescale program grants to fund countryled solutions for reducing poverty
through sustainable economic growth.
Compacts are large, five-year grants
for those countries that pass MCCs
eligibility criteria. Threshold programs
are smaller grants to countries that
dont quite qualify for compacts.
Countries are competitively selected
based on 17 independent and
transparent policy indicators including
corruption indicators.
Mission
MCCs mission is to provide countries
committed to good governance and
economic freedom with large scale
grants to fund country-led solutions
for reducing poverty through
sustainable economic development.
Note: MCC currently provides the most
aid to Mongolia among donor countries.
Bechtel visited MCC in June.
Activity in Mongolia
The MCC has an office in
Ulaanbaatar
In October of 2007, MCC signed a
five-year $285 million Compact
with Mongolia. The Compact
entered into force in September
2008. There is approximately
$169 million uncommitted at this
time
Projects in MCCs Pipeline:
Vocational Education Project
The projects main activities
are to strengthen the policy
and operational framework of
the countrys vocational
education system for providing
technical skills to the
unemployed.
Property Rights Project This
project focuses on improving
the accuracy, accessibility and
efficiency of Mongolias land
titling and registration system.
Health Project This project
aims to address the high and
growing incidence of noncommunicable diseases and
injuries.
Energy and Environment
Project The energy and
environment project is focused
on air quality.
MCC has environmental
guidelines which must be met
and it can co-finance with other
agencies, lenders and insurers.
12-80
Entity/Mission
Activity in Mongolia
Chinese Agencies
The Export Import Bank of China (China
Exim)
China Exim was established in 1994. It
is wholly-owned by the Chinese
government and it reports to the State
Council.
It is one of three Chinese banks
chartered to implement Chinese state
policies in industry, foreign trade,
economics and diplomacy. The other
two policy banks are: the Agricultural
Development Bank and the China
Development Bank.
Mission
Its mission is support Chinese
companies doing business abroad and
to promote Sino-foreign relationships
and international economic and trade
cooperation
Note: China is not a member of the
OECD and thus China Exim is not bound
to provide its financing on terms
agreed under the OECD Arrangement.
It should be considered for any Chinese
company supported projects in
Mongolia.
12-81
Entity/Mission
Activity in Mongolia
Korean Agencies
The Export-Import Bank of Korea
(KEXIM)
KEXIM is South Koreas export credit
agency and its mission is to promote
the development of the Korean
economy and economic cooperation
with foreign countries.
Mission
KEXIMs mission is to support export
and import transactions, overseas
investment projects and the
development of natural resources
abroad through extending loans and
guarantees.
Note: KEXIM supports Korean exports,
materials and services and foreign
content. It can support project finance
structures and it can provide ODA
concessionary loans.
12-82
Entity/Mission
Activity in Mongolia
Japanese Agencies
Japan Bank for International
Cooperation (JBIC)
JBIC promotes overseas development
and acquisition of strategically
important resources for Japan.
It works to maintain and improve the
international competitiveness of
Japanese industries.
It promotes overseas business to
preserve the global environment, such
as preventing global warming.
It responds to disruptions in financial
order in the national economy.
Mission
JBICs mission is to promote
international cooperation between
Japan and other countries by providing
financial resources to support foreign
investment and thus contribute to the
sound development of the Japanese
and world economies.
12-83
Entity/Mission
Nippon Export and Investment
Insurance (NEXI)
NEXI was established in 1950 as part of
Japans export policy.
NEXI is a member of the BERNE Union,
an international credit insurers forum.
Mission
NEXIs mission is to provide trade and
investment insurance to Japanese
exporters and banks to support
Japanese exports and investment.
Activity in Mongolia
NEXI is available to consider
insuring long term sovereign or
project finance structures in
Mongolia.
Environmental Guidelines will
apply.
NEXI can co-finance with other
agencies, insurers and
commercial lenders.
12-84
Entity/Mission
Australian Export Finance and Insurance
Corporation (EFIC)
EFIC is Australias export credit agency.
Mission
To provide finance and insurance
solutions to help Australian exporters
overcome the financial barriers they
face in growing their business
overseas. It finances Australian exports
of goods and services.
Note: EFIC is a very flexible ECA and
provides a full range of export support
services to Australian export companies
to support Australian content.
Activity in Mongolia
EFIC is open to consider
sovereign, corporate or project
finance structures in Mongolia
with Australian content on a
long term basis under OECD
Arrangement rules.
It is particularly interested in
mining and industrial projects
in Mongolia.
EFIC has sustainability and
environmental guidelines that
must be met when it considers
financing projects worldwide
EFIC can co-finance with other
agencies, insurers and private
lenders.
Mission
Exim Bank of Indias mission is to
provide export financing for Indian
companies doing business overseas.
Note: Since India has been showing
interest in investing in Mongolia to the
extent Indian companies become
involved, Exim Bank of India can be
supportive.
12-85
Entity/Mission
COFACE
COFACE is the official export credit
agency of France. It is a member of
the OECD and abides by the rules of
the Export Credit Arrangement.
COFACE was founded in 1946 and was
originally owned by the government of
France. It was privatized in 1994.
It is now 100% privately owned by
Natexis, a French corporate and
investment bank.
It manages the governments book of
export finance guarantees on behalf of
the French government.
COFACEs mission is to facilitate trade
throughout the world by providing
export insurance and guarantees.
Activity in Mongolia
It is not clear if COFACE is
active in Mongolia. It is open to
considering financing in
Mongolia to support French
and European sales and
investments.
As a member of the OECD,
COFACE has environmental
policies that must be met for
its financings.
COFACE can co-finance with
other agencies, lenders and
credit insurers.
To the extent French
companies are interested in
Mongolia COFACE will play a
role.
Mission
COFACEs mission is to provide short,
medium term and long term credit
insurance and related services for
export sales worldwide.
Note: COFACE is an international credit
insurer that provides political risk
insurance (PRI) to French exporters and
banks to cover risks in their overseas
markets. It abides by the terms and
other standards set by the OECD.
Mission
Temaseks mission is to create and
maximize long term shareholder value
as an investor and shareholder of
successful enterprises.
Note: Temasek is a worldwide equity
investor. As defined by the company, its
four focus criteria all appear to fit
Mongolia.
12-86
Entity/Mission
Government of Singapore Investment
Corporation (GIC)
Activity in Mongolia
GIC has no known activity in
Mongolia to date.
Mission
GICs mission is to achieve a good, long
term return for the government over a
20 year horizon.
Note: GIC is one of the oldest sovereign
wealth funds. 20% of its portfolio is
invested in equities and real estate in
emerging markets and in particular,
Asia. As Mongolia continues on its rapid
growth curve, it should become of
interest to GIC for equity investment in
the private sector.
China Investment Corporation (CIC)
CIC manages a part of Chinas foreign
exchange reserves. Its purpose is to
maximize the funds return on
investment with an acceptable
amount of risk and, to improve the
corporate governance of key stateowned financial institutions.
China Investment Corporation (CIC) is
an investment institution established
as a wholly state-owned company
under the Company Law of the
Peoples Republic of China and is
headquartered in Beijing.
Mission
The mission of CIC is to make longterm investments that maximize riskadjusted financial returns for the
benefit of its shareholder.
Note: To the extent that the Republic of
China has a national interest in
Mongolian projects, CIC is a potential
equity investor.
12-87
Entity/Mission
Kuwait Investment Authority (KIA)
The KIA is an autonomous government
body responsible for management and
administration of the Kuwaiti General
Reserve Fund and the Future
Generation Fund.
It is believed to manage assets of over
$225 billion (7th place SWF Institute
Ranking 2010).
KIA is is Kuwait's sovereign wealth
fund managing body specializing in
local and foreign investment. It was
founded to manage the funds of the
Kuwaiti Government in light of
financial surpluses after the discovery
of oil.
Activity in Mongolia
It does not appear that the KIA
is active in Mongolia at the
current time.
On December 7th, 2011,
President Elbegdorj met with
Bader Mohammed Al Saad, the
CEO of the KIA in Ulaanbaatar.
They discussed how KIA could
invest in the future growth of
Mongolia.
The KIA indicated it would be
interested in investments in
infrastructure, mining and the
agriculture sectors.
Mission
KIAs mission is to manage the Kuwait
General Reserve Fund, the Kuwait
Future Generations Fund, as well as
any other assets committed by the
Ministry of Finance.
Note: Because of KIAs recent visit to
Mongolia, it is likely that KIA can be
considered as a potential equity
investor in Mongolia.
12-88
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
12-89
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
12-90
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
12-91
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
12-92
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
12-93
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
12-94
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
12-95
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
12-96
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
12-97
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
12-98
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
12-99
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
12-100
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
12-101
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
12-102
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
12-103
10
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
12-104
11
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
12-105
12
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
12-106
13.
After reviewing the results presented in this report in the preceding sections 2 through 12,
NDIC requested that Bechtel perform further studies to provide more information in the
following areas:
1. Changes to the transportation system required or suggested due to the
reconfiguration of the probable route of the proposed east-west railway in the vicinity
of Sainshand.
2. Recommendations for improvement of the projected economic performance of the
DRI/HBI Plant, including consideration of other processing technologies for
conversion of iron ore to iron.
3. Recommendations for improvement of the projected economic performance of the
Copper Plant, including evaluation of including further processing of the copper into
wire or other finished products.
4. Additional information on the current and projected markets for products from the
Sainshand Industrial Park.
A print copy of a presentation giving a high-level summary of the Study results is also
included as Appendix 13A.
13.1.
The proposed route of the Phase 1 east-west railway, adapted by the GoM, differs from the
probable route at the time the preceding Section 4 of this Report was prepared. Previously,
the route was to connect from the west to the existing rail near Zuunbaayan, continue along
the existing rail to Sainshand, and new rail would extend east from Sainshand. The
proposed route now does not join with the existing rail, but crosses it in the vicinity of
Sainshand.
The location of the Sainshand Industrial Park (SIP) on the south side of the existing rail spur
to Zuunbaayan presents a logistical challenge for connecting the SIP Yard Lead with the
Phase 1 Railroad. Our recommendation is to bring the Phase 1 Railroad alignment parallel
to the Zuunbaayan spur at a point west of the SIP and then crossing over the Zuunbaayan
spur so that the Phase 1 Railroad is south of the Zuunbaayan spur at the SIP. The Phase 1
Railroad would join the existing north/south mainline track with a full Y interchange to allow
traffic to move either north or south without changing direction of the train. The Phase 1
Railroad would continue on toward Choibalsan from a full Y interchange with the north/south
mainline north of Sainshand.
This solution will necessitate a portion of shared track and trackwork between the Phase 1
Railroad and the Zuunbaayan spur track. This shared track will require two interlockings,
one on the east end of the shared track and one on the west end. Ideally, the length of
shared track would be at least as long as the longest unit train in operation (~1.2 km). The
remote nature of these interlockings can be overcome by using solar powered signals and
switch machines. Several manufacturers have developed switching and signaling
equipment for these kinds of remote installations.
13-1
13.2.
13.2.1. INTRODUCTION
DRI/HBI (Direct Reduced Iron combined with Hot Briquetting) technology was selected in
the contract commissioning this study as the basis for the iron making project within the
Sainshand Industrial Park Master Plan. Bechtel used this technology selection for the
planning and sizing of plant layouts, utilities and infrastructure, and preparation of the project
schedules, capital cost estimate, operating cost estimate and economic evaluation. The
economic evaluation performed in December 2011 through February 2012 demonstrated
that iron making based on DRI/HBI would likely not be an economically profitable venture at
SIP.
Although DRI/HBI was used as the basis for planning, it would be possible to use another
iron making technology at SIP. At NDICs request, Bechtel has more thoroughly investigated
other iron making technologies that might be used at SIP.
The following Section 13.2.2 documents the criteria used for selection of iron making
technology for use at SIP. Section 13.2.3 compares various technologies against the
selection criteria, Section 13.2.4 discusses in more detail how the various technologies
would meet the selection criteria. Section 13.2.5 discusses the economics of alternative iron
making technologies at SIP, and Section 13.2.6 provides Bechtels recommendation as to
how the iron making project at SIP might be successfully implemented.
Based on these supplemental investigations, it appears the ITmk3 process offered by KOBE
might be technically satisfactory for use at SIP, but might not achieve a positive economic
profit. Refer to the discussion of KOBE ITmk3 in the following sections.
13-2
13-3
13-4
13-5
13-6
OUTOTEC SL/RN
Outotec SL/RN uses a rotary kiln to intimately mix coal and iron ore to produce sponge iron.
There are other manufacturers of this rotary kiln technology and there are many instances of
its application in China and India. Installed SL/RN plants range from 50,000 tonnes per year
(tpy) to 500,000 tpy. The following is evaluation of the SL/RN process against the selection
criteria and expectations of capital and operating costs:
a. Technology 32 SL/RN kilns, in India and South Africa have been proven
commercially although operations are reported to be of low environmental standard
and low productivity
b. Multiple Suppliers Technology from Outotec; equipment from multiple suppliers
c. Environmental Standards High volume of incompletely combusted off-gas might
not meet environmental standards
d. Economical Size Small size plant might better match domestic demand
e. Marketable Product Non-standard product not exportable and to be economical
would require to be matched with a co-located customer for the iron product
f.
KOBE ITMK3
Kobe ITmk3 uses a rotary hearth to intimately mix coal and iron ore to produce a high
quality iron nugget product. A 500,000 tpy plant has gone into operation in Minnesota, USA,
start-up January 2010. The following is evaluation of KOBE ITmk3 against the selection
criteria and expectations of capital and operating costs:
a. Technology One operating plant in startup in USA
b. Multiple Suppliers Technology from Kobe; equipment from multiple suppliers
c. Environmental Standards Meets USA environmental standards
d. Economical Size Unit size plant of 500,000 tpy would require export market
e. Marketable Product High quality product suited for domestic or export market
f.
13-7
The one operating plant in Minnesota, USA, has been in startup for eighteen months
as of May 2012 and informal reports are that the plant will produce at half-capacity
(250,000 tons as compared to full capacity of 500,000 tpy) in 2012.
Suppliers other than KOBE have questioned if the iron ore available in Mongolia
would be suitable for the ITmk3 process.
The process requires natural gas fuel for the supplemental burners. Although it has
been considered that pulverized coal might be used for these burners, Midrex (a
licensee for the ITmk3 process) has advised that the flame of the pulverized coal
burner is too short and natural gas, fuel oil or LNG would be required for the boilers.
Following is a rough estimate of the requirements for oil, natural gas or LNG to
produce 500,000 metric tons/year of iron nuggets at SIP:
o Oil 340,000 barrels or about 54,000 cubic meters
o Piped natural gas 2.175 million mcf
o LNG 2.175 million mcf as gas or about 90,000 cubic meters as liquid
The value for piped natural gas is provided to facilitate economic comparison to other
locations that might be more favorably situated for iron production than Sainshand.
The economics of the ITmk3 process at SIP is addressed in Section 13.2.5.
13.2.4.3.
HI-SMELT TECHNOLOGY
Hi-Smelt technology from RTZ, now licensed to Outotec, uses iron ore and non-coking coal
to produce pig-iron. The one commercial plant started up in Australia, 20052008, has
been shut down. The following is evaluation of Hi-Smelt technology against the selection
criteria and expectations of capital and operating costs:
a. Technology One operating plant in Australia has been shutdown
b. Multiple Suppliers Technology from RTZ; equipment from multiple suppliers
c. Environmental Standards Meets Australian environmental standards
d. Economical Size Large size plant of 800,000 tpy would require export market
e. Marketable Product Non-standard product would require conversion or co-location
with downstream plant
f.
COREX TECHNOLOGY
Corex technology from Siemens Voest-Alpine, uses iron ore and coal in a two-stage process
to produce molten iron. A Corex plant has been constructed and is in operation in South
Africa and some Corex plants are in operation in India and China. Following is evaluation of
Corex technology against the selection criteria and expectations of capital and operating
costs:
a. Technology Commercially proven with operating plants in Korea, South Africa,
India and China
b. Multiple Suppliers Technology from Voest Alpine; equipment from multiple
suppliers
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
13-8
Direct reduced iron (DRI) combined with HBI (Hot Briquetting) processes from Midrex or
HYL, use a shaft furnace and a reducing gas, either natural gas or manufactured gas (syngas), to produce a direct reduced iron pellet which is briquetted to a hot briquetted iron (HBI)
product for shipment. DRI/HBI is a widely adapted technology accounting for the majority of
alternative iron-making technology including a coal gas supplied plant under construction in
India. Following is evaluation of DRI/HBI technology against the selection criteria and
expectations of capital and operating costs:
a. Technology Commercially proven, widely accepted with operating plants in Korea,
South Africa, India, China, South America and USA
b. Multiple Suppliers Competitive bids have been obtained from both Midrex and
Danieli for the DRI/HBI plant proposed at SIP
c. Environmental Standards Meets USA environmental standards
d. Economical Size Large size plant would require export market
e. Marketable Product Standard product readily marketable as export
f.
13-9
Capacity of the plant was assumed to be 500,000 tonnes of pig iron per year
EPC cost was assumed to be $212.5 million (in 2011 US$)
FEED and pre-FEED cost was estimated at $6.4 million (3% of EPC cost)
Pig iron nuggets produced by the plant were assumed to command a premium of
10% over the forecasted prices of DRI/HBI over the life of the project, due to slightly
higher iron content and higher quality as feedstock for steelmaking 1
Annual material and utility consumption of the plant was assumed as follows:
Feedstock / Utility
Iron Ore
Concentrate
1.5 tonnes
750,000 tonnes
Thermal Coal
(6,000 kcal/kg)
0.5 tonnes
250,000 tonnes
Crude Oil
0.68 barrels
340,000 barrels
Electricity
200 kWh
Water
2 cubic meters
Air
85 cubic meters
Nitrogen
12 cubic meters
Fixed operating cost was assumed to be comprised of: labor cost based on 54
Mongolian employees and six expatriates, maintenance cost of $2.5 million (2011
US$) per year, and other operating costs (excluding insurance cost) of $7.5 million
(2011 US$) per year
Expatriate labor cost was assumed to be $1.1 million (2011 US$) per year, based on
one general manager, four department heads, and one other expatriate employee
and expatriate labor cost assumptions in Table 11-8
Because an export market is expected to be required for the amount of output of the plant (see
Section 13.2.4.2), no other adjustment was made to CRUs price forecast, which is based on exfactory prices of commodities targeted for export.
13-10
Scenario
ITmk3
Plant
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
6.1%
N/A
10.4%
11.3%
N/A After-tax unleveraged IRR cannot be calculated due to poor project economics
According to CRUs long-range forecast, market (non-subsidized) price of crude oil in Mongolia is
expected to rise from US$98 per barrel in 2015 to close to US$300 per barrel in 2050.
13-11
18%
Capex -20%
14%
Power - 30%
Water + 30%
12%
10%
8%
Opex - 30%
Water - 30%
Opex + 30%
Power + 30%
Capex +20%
6%
4%
0%
Figure 13-4: ITmk3 Plant Unleveraged After-tax IRR Sensitivity Analysis Results
13.2.6. IRON PLANT RECOMMENDATION
Bechtel offers these recommendations to further the iron making plant at Sainshand:
1. More accurately determine the analysis and the size of the iron ore deposits that can
be mined to support the iron ore plant at SIP. As basis for the SIP Master Plan, only
one sample result was provided for the iron ore and information on the size of the
deposit is very limited. This is insufficient information to judge the economics of the
proposed iron ore plant and to interest investors in making studies to determine the
feasibility of the iron making project at SIP. Better information on the iron ore
analysis and size of the deposit will remove uncertainty and might make the iron ore
project at SIP interesting to potential investors. The determination of the iron ore
body size and analysis should be determined first because the selected iron making
process will depend upon the nature of the iron ore used as the basic raw material of
the process.
2. Study the local and international markets to determine a product mix and the size of
iron making plant that would be suitable at SIP. The DRI/HBI plant at SIP was sized
for an export market. Producing for the domestic market could reduce the size of
plant and, corresponding to the size of plant, the size of capital investment and might
take advantage of prices in Mongolia that could be higher than export prices.
Matters such as product mix, appropriate plant size and price levels can only be
determined with thorough study. Because the selected process will depend upon the
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
13-12
13.3.
COPPER SMELTER
13.3.1. INTRODUCTION
During discussions between Bechtel and NDIC over potential government incentives for the
proposed copper smelter at SIP, NDIC indicated that the GoM might consider actions such
as subsidizing copper concentrate prices supplied by the GoM-controlled mine at Erdenet,
and imposing a tax on export of copper concentrate to create an incentive for downstream
processing in Mongolia.
13-13
A 2009 report prepared by the United Nations Development Program for the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs and Trade in Mongolia noted that, according to microeconomic theory, the
30% export tax that Mongolia once imposed on cashmere should have reduced the
domestic price and encouraged domestic downstream processing4. However, the export tax
did not produce the expected results because of poor enforcement, lack of financial
resources of processors, and the absence of a coherent wholesale network and supply
chain5. The report also suggested that if the sole policy objective is to support domestic
processing industries, a consumption subsidy is a better instrument than an export tax.
Bechtel recommends that the GoM seek legal and policy advice regarding the desirability of
various options to support the copper smelter at SIP. Bechtel evaluated the high TC/RC
revenue as a sensitivity analysis solely to inform the GoM of the potential effect on project
economic viability, and does not make any representation as to the likelihood of achieving
the higher TC/RC revenues assumed in this sensitivity.
In response to NDICs query about the impact of co-locating a plant for further downstream
processing of copper cathode into copper products, Bechtel conducted another sensitivity
analysis (transportation savings sensitivity) to evaluate the impact of transportation cost
savings on the economics of the copper smelter.
The TC/RC sensitivity and transportation savings sensitivity were evaluated independently,
not as a combined scenario.
13.3.2. ASSUMPTIONS
13.3.2.1.
TC/RC SENSITIVITY
The TC/RC sensitivity assumed a 75% increase over treatment charges for the copper
concentrate, as well as refining charges for copper, silver, and gold forecasted by CRU in its
Base Case forecast (Table 11.6). Note that this sensitivity left commodity prices unchanged
in other words, it merely assumed that the copper smelter either (i) receives a subsidy
3
Article 2.1 of the OT Investment Agreement provides that: (i) the investor in the Oyu Tolgoi project
shall only be subject to taxes listed in Article 7 of Mongolias General Taxation Law as of the date of
the agreement, and (ii) customs duty shall be one of eight taxes that are stabilized i.e., that remain
stable throughout the term of the agreement, unless lowered by any new or amending laws and
regulations.
4
United Nations Development Program, Trade Policy and Human Development in Mongolia, 2008.
5
Ibid., page 63.
13-14
This sensitivity assumed that the copper smelter would be selling all of the copper cathodes
it produces to a copper product plant located at SIP, and involved two changes in the model
assumptions:
Outbound transportation cost was reduced to zero
Additionally, total revenue each year was increased by the amount of the outbound
transportation cost estimated for the Base Case the reason being that a customer
of copper cathode located in the same industrial park as the copper smelter should
be willing to pay a price equivalent to the LME copper price plus the freight cost to
ship copper concentrate from a reference location outside Mongolia to SIP
It should be noted that this sensitivity is not about the economic feasibility of the copper
product plant per se; rather, it evaluates the economic impact of co-locating a copper
product plant with a copper product plant that primarily targets the domestic market,
assuming that the copper product plant is economically feasible. An economic assessment
of the copper product plant is beyond the scope of this study.
13.3.3. RESULTS
In Section 11, the unleveraged after-tax IRR for the copper smelter was 7.1% under Revised
Base Case assumptions, with a 50% capacity increase to 450 kTPA, government incentives
including exemption from VAT and customs duty on EPC cost, income tax holiday, and
subsidized water cost.
Adding a 75% increase to TC/RC to the above scenario is expected to increase the
unleveraged after-tax IRR to 11.1%, i.e., an improvement of 3.0%.
Transportation savings resulting from co-location with a copper plant at SIP, without the
75% increase in TC/RC, are expected to increase the unleveraged after-tax IRR to 10.1%,
i.e., an improvement of 2.0%.
13.3.4. RECOMMENDATIONS
At this planning stage, the copper smelter economic analyses documented in Section 11
and in this section are not conclusive, because they were based on generic commercial
assumptions and preliminary capital cost and operating cost estimates and conducted
without soliciting input from potential investors. Judging from the results, it is possible that a
combination of changes in assumptions could improve the project economics to a point that
is acceptable by potential investors, or that certain investors could find it desirable to invest
in the copper smelter at SIP for strategic reasons. One such reason is that having an
ownership stake in some copper smelting capacity may improve the negotiating position of a
copper mine in negotiations of TC/RC terms with unaffiliated copper smelters. This may
explain why many large copper mining companies own some in-house smelting capacity but
also sell copper concentrate to custom smelters at the same time.
Bechtel recommends that the GoM study the feasibility of the copper smelter further, most
importantly by engaging in a dialogue with potential investors, to confirm their appetite and
their requirements. As discussed in Section 12, this is best done with the assistance of a
commercial advisor that has prior experience soliciting investors for large scale industrial
park developments like SIP.
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
set forth in the Important Notice.
13-15
13.4.
MARKET INFORMATION
In response to NDICs request for global and regional data and market trends for products of
the proposed plants at SIP, Bechtel requested CRU, the international market consultant that
provided long-range commodity price forecasts for the economic analysis of SIP, to provide
historical and near-term forecasts of demand for refined copper, sulfuric acid, HBI/DRI, pig
iron, iron ore pellets, and metallurgical coke.
Full commentary and data sets provided by CRU are included in Appendix 13B.
13.4.1. COPPER
Global copper consumption is forecasted to grow at 4% per year from 19 million tonnes in
2011 to 24 million tonnes in 2016. Over this period, Chinas share of global demand is
expected to increase to 44% from 40%. In 2012, despite a slow first half and sustained
policies to contain construction demand, China copper consumption is expected to grow at
7% to reach 8 million tonnes.
Within the Asian region, CRU is predicting a mixed demand growth pattern. Annual growth
in consumption in Japan, whose forecasted 2012 consumption of 1 million tonne represents
8% of the Asian market, is forecasted to vary between 2% to 4% between 2012 and 2016.
On the other hand, demand in South Korea, Asias third largest consumer of copper, is
forecasted to decrease by 8% in 2012 to 790,000 tonnes, before rebounding to 860,000
tonnes in 2016. Consumption in Russia experienced double digit growth in 2010 and 2011,
but growth is forecasted to slow to 5% in 2012 and 2013, then remain steady at around
700,000 tonnes per year.
13.4.2. SULFURIC ACID
CRU forecasts that global demand and supply of sulfuric acid will remain approximately in
balance at 235 million tonnes in 2012, expecting only a small amount of oversupply
(approximately 500,000 tonnes) to persist through 2017. Beyond 2017, CRU forecasts that
the surplus will revert to a deficit that is forecasted to reach 2.7 million tonnes in 2020.
For East Asia, CRU forecasts total demand of 89 million tonnes, versus supply of 92 million
tonnes in 2012. Within East Asia, annual surplus is forecasted at 4% of consumption
demand through 2016, falling to less than 3% in 2020.
13.4.3. DRI/HBI AND PIG IRON
CRU forecasts global consumption of DRI/HBI to reach 76 million tonnes in 2012. Almost
80% of Asia DRI/HBI consumption is concentrated in India, while China, Japan, South
Korea and Taiwan collectively make up 10%. The largest markets in 2012 are, in order:
India (23 million tonnes), Iran (10 million tonnes), Mexico (6 million tonnes), and Saudi
Arabia (6 million tonnes). Consumption of DRI/HBI by Mongolias neighboring countries in
2012, by contrast, is expected to be small Russia (3 million tonnes), China (2 million
tonnes), South Korea (800,000 tonnes) and Japan (200,000 tonnes). According to CRU
data, the following regional markets are expected to grow at an average annual growth rate
of above 4% between 2011 and 2016:
India (29 million tonnes in 2016)
Saudi Arabia (7 million tonnes in 2016)
Other Middle East (6 million tonnes in 2016)
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions
13-16
set forth in the Important Notice.
Compared to DRI/HBI, global consumption of pig iron is much higher, at 1 billion tonne in
2012, according to CRU. From 2012 to 2016, Asias (excluding the Middle East) share of
global pig iron consumption is expected to remain steady at 74%-75%, while Chinas share
of the world total is expected to remain steady at 58%-59%. Pig iron consumption in China
is forecasted to reach 745 million tonnes in 2016, up from 602 million tonnes in 2011. Other
major markets for pig iron near Mongolia include:
Japan (89 million tonnes in 2016)
Russia (56 million tonnes in 2016)
India (46 million tonnes in 2016)
South Korea (45 million tonnes in 2016)
Taiwan (14 million tonnes in 2016)
13.4.4.
CRU forecasts that global iron ore pellet consumption will reach 430 million tonnes in 2012,
and will continue to grow at 5% to 7% per year between 2012 and 2016, reaching 580
million tonnes in 2016. China, the worlds largest market for iron ore pellets, is expected to
maintain its share of global consumption at 40% between 2012 and 2016, up from 32% in
2007.
CRU does not expect Chinas annual GDP growth to fall below 7.5% through 2016. Robust
pellet consumption for steelmaking through 2016 is expected to drive Chinas consumption
growth to 239 million tonnes in 2016.
Outside China, two fast-growing major iron ore pellet markets in Asia are India and the
Middle East. CRU forecasts Indias consumption of iron ore pellets to grow from 22 million
tonnes in 2011 to 57 million tonnes, at an average annual growth rate of 21%. Over the
same period, consumption of iron ore pellets in the Middle East is forecasted to increase
from 30 million tonnes to 39 million tonnes (average annual growth rate of 6%), driven by
expansion of DRI capacity, particularly in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Other
major markets for iron ore pellets near Mongolia include the former Soviet Union countries
(39 million tonnes in 2011), Japan (9 million tonnes in 2011), and South Korea (3 million
tonnes in 2011); all three markets are forecasted to grow at an average annual rate of 2%
through to 2016.
13.4.5. METALLURGICAL COKE
Global coke consumption growth was strong from 2010 through 2012, but is expected to
ease somewhat through 2016. CRU forecasts 2012 global demand of metallurgical coke to
reach almost 740 million tonnes, and the share of Asia (excluding the Middle East) to remain
steady at approximately 72% through to 2016.
China accounted for 80% of the 501 million tonne Asian coke market in 2011, and is
expected to maintain the same share going forward. Chinas coke consumption is expected
to grow by 7% annually through 2013, then ease to 3% annual growth through 2016,
reaching 504 million tonne in 2016.
The key driver in coke demand is hot metal production. Chinas growth in hot metal
production is expected to progress in parallel with coke production over the forecast period.
13-17
13-18
Use of this report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice of the Contract between NDIC and Bechtel.
Bechtel Confidential
NationalDevelopment&InnovationCommittee
MasterPlanStudyReport
BechtelLimited
Sainshand IndustrialPark
Appendix 13A
13A-1
Use of this report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice of the Contract between NDIC and Bechtel.
Bechtel Confidential
SIPDevelopmentProcess
MajorFindings/Changes
ProcessPlants
UtilitiesandInfrastructure
Schedule
CapitalCostEstimate
PlantEconomicAnalysis
Community
Sustainability/SIPBenefits
NextSteps/DevelopmentPlan
Discussion/Q&A
Agenda
Appendix 13A
13A-2
(FEED)
ConceptPlan
Land
Use
Government
PlanofAction
[200812]
Resolution
#118
Facilities
ValueCreation
Implementation
Engineer
Scopeof
Utilities&
Infra
Bechtel Confidential
Procure
Community
&Sustain
MasterPlan
Study
Scopeof
Process
Plants
Construct
6
Operations
Concession
Tenders
ValueDelivery
Sustainabl
eDev
Stakeholders
Feasibility
Studies
Use of this report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice of the Contract between NDIC and Bechtel.
Layout
Market
Input
Economic
Analysis
Data
SIPPlanning&DevelopmentProcess
Appendix 13A
13A-3
Use of this report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice of the Contract between NDIC and Bechtel.
Bechtel Confidential
Rotaryhearthironplantprovidesbetter
economicsthanDRI/HBI
CopperPlantincreasedfrom300to450
kTPA toimproveeconomics
Optimizepowersolution:newpower
generationplannedatcoalminesite(s),
SIPpoweredfromgrid
MajorFindings/StudyBasisChanges
Appendix 13A
13A-4
Use of this report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice of the Contract between NDIC and Bechtel.
Bechtel Confidential
GoM supportorownershipofpark
infrastructureisrequiredforacceptable
planteconomics
Alternateplantlocationsstudy(Darkhan
foriron,OTforcopper,TTforcoke)
confirmsSIPconcept
Oilrefinerypreferredlocationsat
petroleumproductionsites
MajorFindings/StudyBasisChanges(Cont)
Appendix 13A
13A-5
Use of this report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice of the Contract between NDIC and Bechtel.
Bechtel Confidential
SIPSitePlanandFacilities
Appendix 13A
13A-6
Bechtel Confidential
Use of this report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice of the Contract between NDIC and Bechtel.
Coke: 2 million
tonnes per year
Coke for export
(initially) steel
industry
Coking coal feed
from Tavan
Tolgoi
Capital estimate:
1.8 billion US$
EPC duration: 36
months
SIPSitePlanandFacilities
Coke
2MTPA
Appendix 13A
13A-7
Use of this report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice of the Contract between NDIC and Bechtel.
Bechtel Confidential
SIPSitePlanandFacilities
Copper
450kTPA
Appendix 13A
13A-8
Bechtel Confidential
Use of this report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice of the Contract between NDIC and Bechtel.
SIPSitePlanandFacilities
IronPellets
4.5MTPA
Appendix 13A
13A-9
Use of this report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice of the Contract between NDIC and Bechtel.
Bechtel Confidential
SIPSitePlanandFacilities
IronPlant
500kTPA
10
Appendix 13A
13A-10
Use of this report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice of the Contract between NDIC and Bechtel.
Bechtel Confidential
SIPSitePlanandFacilities
11
Cement
1MTPA
Appendix 13A
13A-11
Bechtel Confidential
Site
Development
Telecoms
SHARED
INFRASTRUCTURE
&FACILITIES
Security
Material
Handling
Rail
Use of this report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice of the Contract between NDIC and Bechtel.
Community
Heating
AirSeparationUnit
Power
Distribution
Water&
Wastewater
SIPSharedInfrastructure&Facilities
12
Appendix 13A
13A-12
Use of this report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice of the Contract between NDIC and Bechtel.
Bechtel Confidential
Schedule
13
Appendix 13A
13A-13
Use of this report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice of the Contract between NDIC and Bechtel.
Bechtel Confidential
Schedule
14
Appendix 13A
13A-14
Pellets
379
Coke
2,265
Use of this report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice of the Contract between NDIC and Bechtel.
Bechtel Confidential
Cement Iron
315 213
Common
Facilities
2,745
694
External
Private
5,262
Roads & Rail
Public / PPP 3,724Community 597
Copper
1,778
CapitalCostEstimate MillionsUS$
15
Appendix 13A
13A-15
Use of this report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice of the Contract between NDIC and Bechtel.
Bechtel Confidential
16
8.6%**
10.5 years**
7.1% /
12.4 years
7.1% /
12.4 years
6.6% /
13.0 years
4.9% /
15.1 years
4.2% /
16.6 years
Copper
Smelter (450
kTPA)
14.4% /
6.3 years
6.7% /
12.7 years
11.6% /
7.3 years
5.6% /
14.3 years
10.5% /
8.1 years
2.8% /
19.0 years
Iron Plant
11.4% /
6.8 years
6.1% /
11.9 years
Iron Ore
Pelletizing
Plant
3.7% /
17.1 years
12.0% /
6.1 years
10.4% /
7.5 years
Coke Plant
8.5% /
8.9 years
10.8% /
6.8 years
Cement Plant
Scenario
ExpectedImpactonEconomicFeasibility
Appendix 13A
13A-16
Use of this report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice of the Contract between NDIC and Bechtel.
Bechtel Confidential
SIPCommunityFacilities
17
Appendix 13A
13A-17
3 Government
Offices, 3
Police & 1 Fire
Station, 4 Post
Offices
Retail,
including 1
Mall
Bechtel Confidential
7 Schools,
5
Nurseries/Kindergarde
ns
Use of this report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice of the Contract between NDIC and Bechtel.
2 Libraries,
5 Community/
Recreation
Centers
2,700 SIP
Employees
SIPCommunityFacilities
18
7 Clinics,
1 Hospital
21,000 New
Residents
7300 Housing
Units
Appendix 13A
13A-18
Use of this report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice of the Contract between NDIC and Bechtel.
Bechtel Confidential
CapturebothshorttermeconomicbenefitsthroughMongolian
participationinSIPanddevelopworkersandbusinessesforfuturein
countryandinternationalopportunities
Buildandmaintainstronggovernment,community
andotherstakeholderrelations
Demonstrateinternationalbestpracticeinsocial
andenvironmentalplanning
19
IntegrateenvironmentalprotectionthroughoutSIP
design,constructionandoperations
VISION
LeverageaneweconomicsectortodiversifytheMongolian
economywhileprotectingtheenvironmentandimproving
humancapacityandcreatingsustainablejobs.
SIPSustainableDevelopmentStrategy
Appendix 13A
13A-19
Use of this report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice of the Contract between NDIC and Bechtel.
Bechtel Confidential
Baseforfollowon
industries,additional
economicgrowth
OptimizeMongolias
industrialcompetitiveness
Buildnewindustrialcenter
topromoteadvancement
opportunitiesfor
Mongolians
20
Appendix 13A
13A-20
Sustainable
Dev
Concession
Tenders
Bechtel Confidential
21
Engagestrongadvisoryteam
(Commercial/Financial,PMC,Legal)
Conductwaterstudy
Specifyparkconfiguration
Engagestakeholders
Reviewenvironmentalstandards
Developlegalframework&incentives
GoM ApprovalofSIPmasterplan
EstablishSIPadministrativebody
NextSteps
StudyreportisunderGoM review,and
finalSIPscopeissubjecttoGoM approval
Use of this report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice of the Contract between NDIC and Bechtel.
Stakeholders
Feasibility
Studies
SIPmasterplanstudyiscomplete
SIPMasterPlanStudyStatus
Appendix 13A
13A-21
APPENDIX 13B
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
13B-1
This report is supplied on a private and confidential basis to the customer. It must not be disclosed in whole or in part,
directly or indirectly or in any other format to any other company, organisation or individual without the prior written
permission of CRU International Limited.
Permission is given for the disclosure of this report to a companys majority owned subsidiaries and its parent
organisation. However, where the report is supplied to a client in his capacity as a manager of a joint venture or
partnership, it may not be disclosed to the other participants without further permission.
CRU International Limiteds responsibility is solely to its direct client. Its liability is limited to the amount of the fees
actually paid for the professional services involved in preparing this report. We accept no liability to third parties,
howsoever arising. Although reasonable care and diligence has been used in the preparation of this report, we do not
guarantee the accuracy of any data, assumptions, forecasts or other forward-looking statements.
CRU International Limited 2012. All rights reserved.
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
13B-2
Contents
Page
1. Introduction
1.1 Copper
1.2 Sulphuric Acid
1.3 Metallics: DRI/HBI/Pig Iron
1.4 Iron ore: Sinter fines, lump ore and pellets
1.5 Metallurgical coke
1
1
2
3
3
5
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
13B-3
1.1 Copper
Copper consumption is forecast to reach 23.5 million tonnes in 2016 rising from 19.3 Mt in
2011.
China dominates consumption growth, though in 2012 China is now expected to rise by only
6.3% due to a slow H1. We expect a bounce in H2, as monetary policy loosening leads to higher
output of copper containing end-use products. However, the governments focus on deflating
the property bubble means that construction demand will remain constrained.
In the short term, increases to consumption forecasts for the USA, Brazil and the Middle East,
as well as a less negative outlook for Europe, will compensate somewhat for the slower Chinese
growth. In Europe the European Central Bank has flooded the banking system in the region with
liquidity through its LTRO programme and relieved the fear that the sovereign debt crisis will
morph into a banking crisis, although this has not solved the underlying debt problems
In 2013, a synchronised cyclical macroeconomic upswing will lift global refined consumption
growth to over 5% and an average of over 4% in 2014-16.
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
13B-4
CRU , OE
CRU STRATEGIES
In Eastern Europe, our Russian consumption forecast from 2014 has been lowered due to an
announcement of forthcoming changes in export taxes that we expect will see wirerod
production for export grow by less than previously expected.
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
13B-5
revisions in Chile with increased production in the first half of the forecast but a more
conservative view of production from existing firm operating capacity beyond 2015.
Nickel leaching demand has increased over the forecast period due to the inclusion of additional
projects beyond 2015 and this is a key reason for a more robust outlook for sulphuric acid
demand. Nickel leaching consumption is forecast to increase at a CAGR of 13.3% (2010-2020).
Industrial consumption has recently been revised down on a global level with reductions in
growth rates in the first half of the forecast, due to the difficult macroeconomic environment
causing a slower recovery than previously expected. In absolute terms, consumption will be
marginally down from previous estimates by 2020 with a resultant CAGR of 4.9% (2010-2020).
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
13B-6
limitations to intensify over our forecast period leading to a falling profile for iron ore output in
China.
Turning to other key markets, Japanese iron ore import demand fell on an annual basis in 2011
owing to the effects of the earthquake and tsunami early on in the year. The fall was, however,
modest (down 2.6m tonnes year-on-year) as the reconstruction efforts boosted demand for steel,
to some degree, and in turn consumption of iron ore. Meanwhile, the strong yen is currently
hindering the competitiveness of the Japanese manufacturing sector, one factor expected to keep
a cap on growth in steel demand and production, and therefore iron ore imports in 2012. Indeed,
imports are expected to rise by a slim 0.5% in 2012. As economic growth remains relatively
muted, we similarly expect limited growth in hot metal production and therefore iron ore
demand to 2016. By the end of our forecast period, we expect imports to reach 140m tonnes, an
increase of approximately 10m tonnes from 2011.
The third largest import market for iron ore in Asia is South Korea which saw robust growth in
iron ore imports in 2011. The 20% year-on-year increase in imports was driven by new blast
furnace capacity coming online. Weaker demand fundamentals on a global scale meant,
however, that output from this new capacity had to be temporarily cutback last year. During our
forecast period we expect demand for iron ore to continue climbing, although the rate of growth
will slow considerably.
Alongside Asia, the Middle East continues to be a key area of growth for iron ore demand as
DRI capacity expansions ramp up, particularly in Saudi Arabia and the UAE. This will continue
to drive this regions demand for pellet feed and pellets higher over the forecast period.
Some producers have recognised the potential for future growth in this region, one being Vale,
with its pellet plant in Oman reaching first production in 2011. Further capacity additions are
expected in the short term.
In Western Europe, iron ore imports remained relatively flat on an annual basis in 2011 at
approximately 119m tonnes. As economic instability intensified over the fourth quarter, we saw
further cutbacks in blast furnace output, pulling back iron ore demand further. Indicators have
since improved in 2012 with finished steel prices now edging higher thanks to production
cutbacks. Despite this, uncertainty around steel end-user demand persists and, although PMI
data has shown some increase, it suggests anaemic growth at best.
With a recent downgrade to our economic forecasts, we expect a contraction in steel demand
and therefore iron ore consumption in Western Europe in 2012. Iron ore imports are expected to
fall by 4% on an annual basis which equates to approximately 4m tonnes. From 2013, gains are
expected although these are expected to be modest with annual growth between 1-2%.
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
13B-7
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
13B-8
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
10
11
% Change
12 13 14
15
Canada
Mexico
USA
North America
131
247
1465
1843
133
218
1579
1931
133
227
1579
1939
127
229
1602
1958
127
241
1646
2013
128
253
1700
2082
130
267
1759
2156
129
280
1803
2213
1.6
-11.7
7.8
4.7
0.0
4.0
0.0
0.5
-5.0
1.0
1.5
1.0
0.2
5.0
2.7
2.8
1.1
5.3
3.3
3.4
1.2
5.3
3.5
3.6
Argentina
Brazil
Chile
Peru
Venezuela
Other
S & C America
40
316
98
55
5
14
528
37
435
105
54
5
14
650
38
462
111
55
5
15
685
38
489
115
55
5
14
718
39
524
121
58
6
15
762
41
548
125
59
6
14
793
42
577
129
61
6
14
830
43
602
133
63
6
14
861
-8.0
37.6
6.6
-2.6
2.8
5.3
23.1
2.0
6.0
6.1
2.5
3.1
2.5
5.4
1.5
6.0
4.0
1.0
2.0
-1.2
4.8
3.2 3.4
7.0 4.6
5.0 3.0
4.0 2.9
3.1 3.0
0.5 -0.8
6.1 4.0
2.9
5.4
3.6
3.1
2.8
-0.5
4.7
Belgium
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Italy
Netherlands
Poland
Russia
Spain
Sweden
UK
Former Yugo
Other W Europe
Other E&C Europe
Europe
231
46
250
1053
84
514
46
203
387
230
151
32
20
27
143
3417
256
44
193
1194
63
573
47
260
452
229
166
33
21
30
107
3665
258
41
197
1239
64
542
48
262
647
229
139
33
22
31
106
3858
256
40
193
1229
60
513
47
255
679
221
135
33
22
31
106
3820
258
40
188
1265
59
512
47
256
711
219
137
33
22
31
109
3886
265
39
185
1312
57
517
48
269
712
231
140
34
23
31
112
3975
268
40
185
1357
56
524
49
276
701
242
145
34
23
32
115
4047
273
40
187
1395
56
540
50
280
671
254
148
35
24
32
118
4102
10.6
1.0
-5.1 -5.5
-22.9
2.0
13.4
3.8
-24.7
1.0
11.5 -5.4
2.8
3.5
27.8
1.0
16.6 43.1
-0.3
0.0
9.6 -16.0
1.8
2.5
1.4
3.5
10.7
3.1
-25.0 -1.3
7.3
5.3
-1.0
-2.1
-2.0
-0.8
-5.4
-5.4
-2.0
-3.0
5.0
-3.4
-3.1
-1.1
1.2
0.1
0.4
-1.0
0.8 2.8
-0.8 -1.9
-2.5 -1.5
2.9 3.7
-1.8 -4.0
-0.2 1.1
-0.3 2.5
0.7 5.0
4.6 0.2
-1.2 5.6
1.3 2.4
0.3 1.6
1.2 2.9
0.3 1.1
3.0 2.6
1.7 2.3
1.2
1.4
0.0
3.4
-2.0
1.2
1.5
2.5
-1.5
4.9
3.8
2.5
3.4
1.2
2.9
1.8
of which W Europe
of which E&C Europe
2684
734
2847
819
2843
1015
2780
1040
2810
1076
2882
1093
2955
1093
3033
1069
6.1
11.6
-0.1
24.0
-2.2
2.5
1.1
3.5
2.6
1.6
2.5
-0.1
13.0
13.4
0.1
9.0
17.3
4.4
0.3
5.0
5.6
2.9
7.6
8.7
6.3
30.0
13.4
9.7
11.5
9.9
9.6
5.9
5.9 6.3
4.0 5.8
2.6 2.6
2.9 0.9
-4.3 2.0
3.9 3.5
0.0 -3.0
3.1 1.9
9.9 5.1
-5.0 -8.1
-6.0 -7.3
1.8 6.2
0.5 1.9
25.0 7.5
16.0 7.3
4.4 1.9
3.6 4.0
7.6 3.6
-4.9 -3.6
4.5 4.8
8.1 6.4
4.9 6.9
5.0 3.5
5.0 4.3
4.2 3.0
4.8 4.6
-2.0 -2.9
3.9 4.1
5.0 2.0
-0.5 2.4
-1.0 -1.5
4.8 4.0
4.2 6.0
7.4 7.5
10.0 7.8
5.3 5.6
6.4 5.4
5.2 4.8
1.5 1.9
5.8 4.6
5.8
7.1
3.9
4.3
2.2
5.1
-2.9
3.6
3.1
3.1
-1.7
3.2
7.2
6.9
7.0
5.1
5.1
5.4
1.8
4.2
China
India
Indonesia
Iran
Japan
Malaysia
North Korea
Philippines
Saudi Arabia
S.Korea
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
UAE
Vietnam
Other
Asia
Middle East
NE Asia
SE Asia
Egypt
South Africa
Other
Africa
143
83
42
268
148
71
43
262
120
72
45
237
121
70
45
236
138
71
46
254
155
69
46
270
177
69
46
291
188
68
46
302
3.5 -19.0
-14.5
1.5
3.6
2.9
-2.1 -9.8
Australasia
112
117
115
111
106
102
98
95
4.5
-2.0
Western World
Former E. Bloc
7.9
12.9
-0.1
7.8
0.0
5.8
2.8
7.6
3.3
5.9
3.5
5.2
World
World Ex-China
10.0
8.2
3.4
1.8
2.6
0.2
5.1
2.9
4.6
3.2
4.3
3.2
-3.9
Data: CRU
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
13B-9
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
13B-10
24959
Phosphoric Acid
-977
Balance
1429
Smelter Gas
4752
1584
Supply
Demand
Phosphoric Acid
1074
-189
Industrial
Balance
966
Uranium
221
Nickel
28
Copper
SSP
879
4564
Recycle
Ammonium Sulphate
0
0
Other
3135
Sulphur
Pyrites
4564
Production
Central America
26
9052
Industrial
1624
Uranium
Nickel
Copper
SSP
2932
38597
Ammonium Sulphate
37620
Demand
1800
Recycle
Supply
1252
Other
Pyrites
5141
29427
Smelter Gas
35820
Sulphur
2011
Production
North America
-383
1123
950
250
28
886
1471
4709
4326
1461
2865
4326
-919
9244
26
1739
2985
24215
38214
37295
1800
1252
5287
28956
35495
2012
-957
1163
958
600
28
894
1579
5221
4263
1461
2803
4263
-1037
9306
26
1873
3003
24232
38445
37408
1800
1252
5307
29049
35608
2013
-1156
1210
1064
811
27
901
1521
5535
4379
1461
2919
4379
-1136
9265
26
1936
3039
24279
38549
37413
1800
1261
5248
29104
35613
2014
-1256
1270
1117
873
27
908
1510
5705
4449
1461
2988
4449
-930
9313
26
1886
3039
24465
38734
37804
1800
1261
5438
29305
36004
2015
-1232
1344
1250
869
27
915
1495
5900
4669
1461
3208
4669
-809
9281
25
1738
3075
24047
38169
37361
1800
1261
5438
28862
35561
2016
-1157
1388
1250
873
27
933
1495
5966
4809
1461
3348
4809
-670
9121
24
1732
3093
23862
37836
37165
1800
1261
5438
28666
35365
2017
-1229
1432
1250
867
27
969
1509
6054
4824
1461
3364
4824
-803
9337
21
1592
3139
23683
37776
36973
1800
1261
5438
28474
35173
2018
-1282
1476
1250
840
27
1004
1507
6105
4823
1461
3362
4823
-978
9567
21
1452
3193
23295
37531
36553
1800
1261
5438
28054
34753
2019
Table 13B-2: World and Regional Sulphuric Acid Balance, 2011-2020 (thousand tonnes)
-1321
1523
1250
816
27
1040
1502
6158
4837
1479
3359
4837
-1191
9795
21
1366
3228
22830
37243
36052
1800
1261
5438
27553
34252
2020
Page1of7
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
13B-11
16420
Demand
-2900
Balance
Balance
1808
9209
Industrial
129
Nickel
Uranium
24
Copper
226
2797
Ammonium Sulphate
SSP
1213
13598
Demand
Phosphoric Acid
1670
15406
Supply
535
Other
Recycle
700
5760
Smelter Gas
Pyrites
6741
Sulphur
Production
13736
1313
Industrial
West Europe
16
Uranium
9045
Copper
Nickel
2146
362
SSP
Ammonium Sulphate
3537
13520
Supply
Phosphoric Acid
157
Other
Recycle
150
7736
5477
13520
2011
Pyrites
Smelter Gas
Sulphur
Production
South America
1540
9621
168
37
242
3137
1204
14408
15949
1670
535
700
5924
7120
14279
-1623
1341
16
8441
2525
363
3608
16293
14670
590
214
8189
5677
14670
2012
1264
9857
224
40
258
3151
1192
14722
15986
1670
535
700
5964
7117
14316
-1100
1405
16
8299
2543
441
4255
16960
15860
590
214
8235
6821
15860
2013
1000
10094
264
40
273
3165
1180
15017
16017
1670
535
700
5964
7148
14347
-397
1461
16
8279
2487
531
5036
17809
17412
727
214
8286
8185
17412
2014
773
10304
264
40
289
3176
1169
15241
16014
1670
535
700
5964
7145
14344
-442
1518
16
8324
2338
531
5409
18136
17694
727
214
8286
8467
17694
2015
544
10558
264
40
305
3140
1160
15467
16011
1670
535
700
5964
7142
14341
-280
1586
16
8391
2368
549
5987
18897
18617
727
214
8358
9318
18617
2016
325
10729
336
40
320
3137
1154
15717
16042
1670
535
700
5964
7173
14372
-240
1628
16
8318
2441
566
6411
19381
19141
727
214
8358
9842
19141
2017
45
10933
400
40
336
3137
1151
15998
16042
1670
535
700
5964
7173
14372
-46
1671
16
8030
2663
591
6787
19758
19712
727
214
8358
10414
19712
2018
-69
11130
400
40
352
3119
1157
16197
16129
1670
535
700
5964
7260
14459
-84
1715
16
7773
2736
624
7204
20069
19985
727
214
8358
10687
19985
2019
Table 13B-2: World and Regional Sulphuric Acid Balance, 2011-2020 (thousand tonnes)
-198
11321
400
40
367
3119
1157
16404
16206
1670
535
700
5964
7337
14536
1761
16
7646
2884
652
7574
20532
20540
727
214
8358
11242
20540
2020
Page2of7
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
13B-12
936
Balance
2471
3636
-63
Industrial
Balance
Nickel
Uranium
Copper
26
1860
SSP
9847
17839
Demand
Ammonium Sulphate
17777
Supply
Phosphoric Acid
1906
Recycle
Other
Pyrites
4411
11459
Sulphur
Smelter Gas
17777
Production
FSU
1119
Industrial
Nickel
Uranium
156
Copper
SSP
1066
Phosphoric Acid
751
3098
Ammonium Sulphate
4034
Demand
90
Supply
Recycle
129
Other
2247
Smelter Gas
12
1556
Pyrites
3944
Sulphur
2011
Production
Central Europe
150
3688
2680
26
1910
9347
17659
17809
2006
5016
10787
17809
945
1155
156
751
1044
3111
4057
90
133
12
2372
1449
3967
2012
-101
3739
2793
30
26
2124
9348
18061
17960
2006
5091
10863
17960
1075
1176
156
751
1024
3113
4188
90
133
12
2523
1429
4098
2013
193
3782
2890
51
26
2178
9422
18348
18541
2006
5491
11044
18541
1206
1232
156
751
975
3119
4324
90
133
12
2709
1380
4234
2014
-14
3813
2979
60
26
2192
9524
18594
18580
2006
5491
11083
18580
1096
1282
155
751
984
3178
4274
90
133
12
2649
1390
4184
2015
340
3852
3062
66
26
2224
9595
18825
19165
2006
5510
11649
19165
1153
1327
155
751
979
3215
4368
90
133
12
2748
1384
4278
2016
258
3894
3133
110
26
2231
9685
19078
19336
2006
5510
11820
19336
1107
1366
155
751
977
3251
4358
90
133
12
2741
1382
4268
2017
466
3927
3067
120
26
2249
9904
19293
19759
2006
5510
12243
19759
1071
1409
155
751
975
3292
4363
90
133
12
2748
1380
4273
2018
491
3972
2971
120
26
2249
10017
19355
19847
2006
5510
12331
19847
1019
1454
154
751
961
3323
4342
90
133
12
2741
1366
4252
2019
Table 13B-2: World and Regional Sulphuric Acid Balance, 2011-2020 (thousand tonnes)
517
4011
2821
120
26
2303
10108
19389
19906
2006
5510
12391
19906
962
1504
154
751
775
3188
4149
90
133
12
2734
1180
4059
2020
Page3of7
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
13B-13
1566
-599
Industrial
Balance
1182
Uranium
Industrial
-715
Nickel
Balance
14
Copper
362
Phosphoric Acid
194
4420
Demand
SSP
6172
Supply
Ammonium Sulphate
5457
Recycle
200
Other
280
Pyrites
4977
Sulphur
Smelter Gas
5457
Production
Middle East
422
1177
Uranium
Nickel
Copper
597
18371
Phosphoric Acid
SSP
22433
Demand
299
21834
Supply
Ammonium Sulphate
91
Other
Recycle
77
Pyrites
1375
20291
Smelter Gas
21834
Sulphur
2011
Production
Africa
-271
1157
11
361
201
6994
8724
8452
200
480
7772
8452
-570
1573
452
355
1272
597
371
19181
23800
23230
91
77
1418
21645
23230
2012
14
1107
10
320
208
8062
9708
9722
200
680
8842
9722
-253
1610
473
806
1411
597
424
20726
26048
25795
91
77
1820
23807
25795
2013
215
1171
258
208
8897
10540
10755
200
930
9625
10755
-333
1653
497
1160
1570
598
442
21596
27516
27183
91
77
2234
24782
27183
2014
243
1230
198
215
9270
10916
11159
200
1030
9929
11159
102
1698
573
1451
1655
598
442
22947
29363
29465
91
77
2582
26715
29465
2015
195
1279
379
215
9924
11797
11991
200
1030
10761
11991
-123
1747
663
1773
1704
598
442
24371
31298
31175
91
77
2826
28181
31175
2016
114
1321
359
233
10546
12458
12573
200
1030
11343
12573
255
1783
702
1773
1689
577
442
25687
32653
32908
91
77
2925
29815
32908
2017
91
1364
358
244
10700
12666
12757
200
1030
11527
12757
-195
1820
740
1773
1689
577
471
27156
34226
34031
91
77
2923
30940
34031
2018
14
1409
321
244
10860
12834
12848
200
1030
11618
12848
-149
1860
829
1773
1655
577
471
28715
35879
35730
91
77
2921
32641
35730
2019
Table 13B-2: World and Regional Sulphuric Acid Balance, 2011-2020 (thousand tonnes)
36
1456
357
244
10899
12955
12992
200
1030
11762
12992
-646
1902
803
1773
1620
577
542
30793
38010
37364
91
77
2960
34237
37364
2020
Page4of7
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
13B-14
3887
Phosphoric Acid
-243
Balance
1333
Smelter Gas
-822
Balance
624
Nickel
0
177
Copper
2127
209
SSP
Industrial
996
Uranium
671
4804
Demand
Ammonium Sulphate
3982
Supply
Phosphoric Acid
25
190
Recycle
Other
2434
Sulphur
Pyrites
3957
Production
Southeast Asia
16
2359
Industrial
Nickel
Uranium
1391
Copper
SSP
493
8147
Ammonium Sulphate
7904
Demand
Supply
Recycle
30
Other
3534
Smelter Gas
0
4340
Pyrites
7904
Sulphur
2011
Production
South Asia
-1270
2248
624
203
208
1071
749
5103
3833
25
205
1090
2513
3808
-314
2559
16
1386
503
3962
8428
8115
30
4014
4071
8115
2012
-1283
2382
754
218
208
1089
764
5414
4131
25
205
1340
2561
4106
-279
2759
16
1386
518
3994
8674
8395
30
4005
4360
8395
2013
-1708
2523
1014
240
208
1092
779
5856
4148
25
205
1340
2578
4123
-376
2859
16
1386
535
4023
8821
8445
30
4009
4406
8445
2014
-1978
2702
1346
240
207
1092
794
6382
4403
25
205
1340
2833
4378
-379
2959
19
1387
553
4037
8957
8578
30
4009
4539
8578
2015
-2286
2844
1894
240
207
1146
808
7140
4854
25
205
1400
3224
4829
-418
3109
20
1384
553
4052
9120
8701
30
4009
4662
8701
2016
-2496
2987
2384
240
207
1181
823
7823
5327
25
180
1400
3721
5302
-350
3159
22
1397
571
4066
9217
8867
30
4009
4828
8867
2017
-2747
3137
2605
240
207
1181
838
8208
5461
25
86
1400
3949
5436
-55
3259
22
1397
571
4080
9331
9276
30
4009
5237
9276
2018
-2884
3275
2605
231
206
1181
853
8352
5468
25
86
1400
3957
5443
30
3359
22
1397
589
4095
9463
9493
30
4009
5454
9493
2019
Table 13B-2: World and Regional Sulphuric Acid Balance, 2011-2020 (thousand tonnes)
-3083
3452
2605
231
222
1181
876
8567
5484
25
86
1400
3973
5459
-303
3459
22
1375
596
4109
9563
9260
30
4009
5221
9260
2020
Page5of7
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
13B-15
25576
4107
Industrial
Balance
1390
Demand
Phosphoric Acid
-145
641
Balance
399
Industrial
1193
53
1040
Uranium
Nickel
Copper
SSP
220
4936
Supply
Ammonium Sulphate
20
4791
Recycle
15
Other
2685
Smelter Gas
0
2071
Sulphur
Pyrites
4771
Production
Oceania Total
36
152
Uranium
Nickel
Copper
8367
44835
Phosphoric Acid
SSP
82906
Demand
3940
87013
Supply
Ammonium Sulphate
571
100
Recycle
16962
Pyrites
Other
28491
40889
Smelter Gas
86913
Sulphur
2011
Production
East Asia
-402
869
396
2012
79
1040
220
1416
6032
5629
20
15
2705
2889
5609
3621
28209
36
152
8355
4304
47598
88653
92274
100
1071
15500
30042
45561
92174
2012
-525
899
406
2887
86
1040
220
1493
7030
6505
20
15
2705
3765
6485
3719
31529
38
185
8342
4379
47852
92325
96044
100
1521
14000
32092
48332
95944
2013
-786
924
417
3474
87
1040
220
1715
7878
7092
20
15
2705
4352
7072
3879
34427
38
222
8329
4475
48313
95805
99684
100
1871
11500
34242
51971
99584
2014
-864
950
422
4307
96
1040
220
1754
8789
7925
20
15
2705
5185
7905
4118
36694
38
260
8317
4565
48661
98534
102652
100
2271
10000
35192
55089
102552
2015
-921
964
433
4953
102
1040
220
1759
9472
8551
20
15
2705
5811
8531
4248
40113
40
260
8304
4690
49143
102550
106799
100
2471
8400
36642
59186
106699
2016
-631
881
442
5255
102
1040
220
1777
9717
9087
20
15
1835
7217
9067
3941
43067
40
260
8292
4797
49648
106103
110045
100
2571
8400
38792
60182
109945
2017
-615
895
443
5255
75
1040
220
1774
9701
9087
20
15
1835
7217
9067
3958
45865
41
260
8279
4940
50349
109734
113693
130
2671
8400
41012
61480
113563
2018
-623
909
440
5255
74
1040
220
1771
9710
9087
20
15
1835
7217
9067
3728
48577
41
260
8267
5011
51181
113336
117065
150
2871
8400
42692
62952
116915
2019
Table 13B-2: World and Regional Sulphuric Acid Balance, 2011-2020 (thousand tonnes)
-1011
923
440
5255
74
1447
220
1739
10098
9087
20
15
1835
7217
9067
3521
50839
53
260
8272
5083
52009
116516
120037
170
2971
8400
44142
64354
119867
2020
Page6of7
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
13B-16
3,391
197
Balance
2,912
Nickel
58,856
12,488
Copper
Industrial
14,553
SSP
Uranium
15,722
115,781
Phosphoric Acid
Ammonium Sulphate
223,704
3,705
Recycle
223,901
4,877
Other
Demand
18,101
Supply
64,422
Pyrites
132,797
Smelter Gas
220,196
Sulphur
2011
Production
World
505
62,787
3,627
4,108
12,194
14,929
16,702
120,788
235,135
235,640
3,705
5,928
16,703
67,998
141,306
231,935
2012
538
66,932
3,774
5,628
12,754
14,908
17,202
124,522
245,719
246,257
3,705
6,378
15,203
71,223
149,747
242,552
2013
601
70,600
3,905
6,977
13,244
14,793
17,538
127,736
254,793
255,395
3,705
6,874
12,703
74,619
157,493
251,690
2014
468
73,734
4,079
8,485
13,438
14,588
17,684
130,523
262,530
262,998
3,705
7,274
11,203
76,147
164,668
259,293
2015
412
78,003
4,261
10,134
13,412
14,798
17,920
133,321
271,850
272,261
3,705
7,474
9,603
78,091
173,388
268,556
2016
457
81,324
4,382
10,998
13,367
14,845
18,155
136,131
279,201
279,658
3,705
7,550
9,603
79,462
179,338
275,953
2017
-59
85,049
4,353
11,282
12,915
15,068
18,463
138,906
286,037
285,978
3,735
7,556
9,603
81,688
183,397
282,243
2018
-784
88,703
4,344
11,282
12,447
15,107
18,655
141,615
292,154
291,369
3,755
7,756
9,603
83,359
186,897
287,614
2019
Table 13B-2: World and Regional Sulphuric Acid Balance, 2011-2020 (thousand tonnes)
-2,710
91,945
4,180
11,282
12,174
15,713
18,959
144,371
298,625
295,915
3,775
7,856
9,603
84,858
189,823
292,140
2020
Page7of7
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
13B-17
0.000
0.001
3.363
0.068
0.326
0.005
0.399
28.188
0.000
0.000
3.295
0.076
0.364
0.006
0.446
25.715
Vietnam
Japan
South Korea
Taiwan
Data: CRU
TOTAL ASIA
0.003
India
0.010
2.323
0.770
China
Thailand
5.923
9.686
1.906
1.154
2.596
USA
1.453
4.176
6.121
Mexico
1.705
0.593
0.970
Canada
1.580
5.708
6.879
Malaysia
0.740
0.980
Indonesia
4.057
3.693
Venezuela
22.103
0.009
0.295
Brazil
21.205
0.902
1.910
Argentina
5.381
5.643
TOTAL AFRICA
0.027
1.014
1.395
Other Africa
22.077
1.389
1.180
South Africa
0.029
0.000
0.000
Morocco
21.175
2.977
3.068
0.001
0.000
Egypt
2009
Algeria
Country
2008
29.509
0.904
0.006
0.674
0.224
3.421
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.905
1.515
23.418
0.013
23.405
1.766
8.282
1.833
5.433
1.017
4.646
0.962
1.986
0.011
1.688
4.637
0.559
1.120
0.000
2.958
0.000
2010
27.916
1.049
0.000
0.809
0.241
3.069
0.001
0.000
0.000
1.570
1.497
21.967
0.002
21.964
1.832
8.957
2.078
5.980
0.898
4.859
0.701
2.467
0.011
1.680
4.546
0.001
1.410
0.000
3.135
0.000
2011
29.326
1.003
0.000
0.801
0.202
3.426
0.001
0.000
0.000
1.913
1.512
23.129
0.060
23.069
1.768
9.416
2.384
6.134
0.898
6.114
1.351
2.974
0.021
1.768
4.356
0.046
1.136
0.000
3.174
0.000
2012
31.186
1.063
0.000
0.819
0.244
3.552
0.001
0.000
0.000
1.919
1.632
24.486
0.138
24.348
2.085
9.791
2.546
6.291
0.955
6.853
1.617
3.355
0.026
1.855
4.847
0.211
1.207
0.000
3.429
0.000
2013
32.779
1.089
0.000
0.838
0.251
3.921
0.001
0.000
0.000
2.097
1.823
25.448
0.145
25.303
2.321
10.686
3.204
6.506
0.976
7.265
1.682
3.589
0.027
1.967
5.426
0.428
1.312
0.000
3.685
0.000
2014
35.147
1.104
0.000
0.848
0.256
4.210
0.001
0.000
0.000
2.356
1.852
27.328
0.277
27.051
2.505
11.517
3.747
6.767
1.003
7.558
1.759
3.714
0.028
2.057
5.714
0.538
1.268
0.000
3.907
0.000
2015
37.486
1.112
0.000
0.852
0.261
4.216
0.001
0.000
0.000
2.384
1.830
29.501
0.769
28.732
2.658
12.045
3.996
7.026
1.023
7.894
1.764
3.846
0.028
2.257
6.162
0.726
1.323
0.000
4.113
0.000
2016
6.972
0.255
0.000
0.197
0.058
0.767
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.392
0.374
5.482
0.001
5.481
0.468
2.191
0.500
1.458
0.233
1.072
0.157
0.559
0.003
0.353
1.092
0.000
0.330
0.000
0.761
0.000
Q1
6.879
0.267
0.000
0.205
0.062
0.767
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.392
0.374
5.361
0.001
5.360
0.484
2.244
0.512
1.487
0.245
1.209
0.181
0.591
0.003
0.434
1.155
0.000
0.346
0.000
0.809
0.000
Q2
2011
7.054
0.258
0.000
0.201
0.056
0.767
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.392
0.374
5.560
0.001
5.559
0.469
2.256
0.535
1.509
0.213
1.273
0.175
0.660
0.003
0.436
1.156
0.000
0.370
0.000
0.785
0.000
Q3
7.012
0.269
0.000
0.205
0.065
0.767
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.392
0.374
5.565
0.001
5.564
0.411
2.265
0.531
1.526
0.208
1.305
0.188
0.657
0.003
0.457
1.143
0.000
0.363
0.000
0.780
0.000
Q4
6.871
0.220
0.000
0.199
0.022
0.753
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.413
0.340
5.553
0.000
5.553
0.344
2.271
0.659
1.423
0.189
1.265
0.284
0.640
0.003
0.339
1.097
0.001
0.344
0.000
0.752
0.000
Q1
7.358
0.261
0.000
0.202
0.060
0.868
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.474
0.394
5.764
0.000
5.764
0.465
2.364
0.582
1.546
0.237
1.604
0.355
0.784
0.006
0.459
1.058
0.002
0.257
0.000
0.799
0.000
Q2
2012
7.361
0.258
0.000
0.199
0.060
0.909
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.504
0.405
5.722
0.026
5.695
0.472
2.380
0.579
1.570
0.231
1.669
0.359
0.825
0.006
0.479
1.088
0.015
0.267
0.000
0.806
0.000
Q3
7.736
0.264
0.000
0.203
0.061
0.895
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.522
0.373
6.091
0.034
6.057
0.487
2.401
0.565
1.595
0.241
1.576
0.354
0.725
0.006
0.491
1.113
0.028
0.267
0.000
0.818
0.000
Q4
7.885
0.257
0.000
0.196
0.061
0.921
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.506
0.415
6.198
0.034
6.164
0.509
2.386
0.596
1.553
0.237
1.643
0.371
0.819
0.006
0.447
1.163
0.040
0.296
0.000
0.826
0.000
Q1
Table 13B-3: Total consumption of DRI/HBI in carbon crude steel production by country and region, 2008-2016 (m tonnes)
2013
7.743
0.271
0.000
0.210
0.061
0.918
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.481
0.436
6.032
0.034
5.998
0.522
2.407
0.608
1.558
0.241
1.744
0.423
0.849
0.007
0.466
1.200
0.051
0.301
0.000
0.848
0.000
Q2
7.647
0.267
0.000
0.206
0.061
0.855
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.463
0.392
6.005
0.035
5.971
0.520
2.507
0.665
1.604
0.238
1.744
0.423
0.843
0.007
0.471
1.229
0.054
0.304
0.000
0.871
0.000
Q3
7.911
0.268
0.000
0.207
0.061
0.859
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.469
0.389
6.250
0.035
6.215
0.534
2.491
0.677
1.575
0.239
1.723
0.400
0.845
0.007
0.472
1.256
0.066
0.306
0.000
0.883
0.000
Q4
Page1of2
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
13B-18
1.456
8.249
5.541
2.081
7.558
5.535
TOTAL EUROPE
Iran
Saudi Arabia
Data: CRU
65.320
0.077
0.032
Total Non-EU
67.274
0.000
0.000
Other Non-EU
TOTAL WORLD
0.077
0.032
Turkey
0.000
1.380
2.049
Total EU-27
0.000
0.287
0.300
Other EU-27
TOTAL OCEANIA
0.001
0.000
UK
0.000
0.252
0.555
Spain
0.000
0.001
0.259
Slovakia
0.000
0.000
0.001
Romania
0.000
0.002
0.004
Poland
New Zealand
0.147
0.361
Italy
Australia
0.000
0.000
Hungary
1.679
0.661
0.476
Germany
15.469
0.016
0.071
France
1.488
0.007
0.022
Czech Republic
14.580
0.006
0.000
Bulgaria
0.072
0.082
Other CIS
3.195
0.128
0.530
Ukraine
2.689
2.995
2.078
TOTAL CIS
0.000
0.000
Russia
2009
Kazakhstan
Country
2008
71.599
0.000
0.000
0.000
18.770
2.996
6.376
9.397
2.465
0.278
0.000
0.278
2.187
0.378
0.079
0.576
0.007
0.001
0.002
0.241
0.000
0.860
0.032
0.012
0.000
3.290
0.068
0.346
2.875
0.000
2010
73.020
0.000
0.000
0.000
20.559
4.386
5.803
10.370
2.670
0.237
0.040
0.196
2.434
0.484
0.138
0.588
0.003
0.014
0.002
0.497
0.000
0.612
0.076
0.020
0.000
3.511
0.129
0.326
3.056
0.000
2011
76.135
0.000
0.000
0.000
20.865
4.341
6.128
10.396
2.602
0.221
0.041
0.180
2.381
0.467
0.151
0.436
0.001
0.014
0.001
0.473
0.000
0.758
0.058
0.023
0.000
3.456
0.099
0.296
3.060
0.000
2012
80.503
0.000
0.000
0.000
21.630
4.439
6.498
10.694
2.620
0.229
0.041
0.188
2.392
0.435
0.152
0.583
0.003
0.015
0.000
0.418
0.000
0.677
0.085
0.024
0.000
3.575
0.101
0.419
3.055
0.000
2013
87.152
0.000
0.000
0.000
23.779
5.674
6.810
11.295
2.784
0.238
0.041
0.197
2.546
0.446
0.157
0.598
0.004
0.015
0.000
0.406
0.000
0.803
0.092
0.025
0.000
4.434
0.107
0.472
3.855
0.000
2014
92.823
0.000
0.000
0.000
25.051
6.133
7.138
11.779
2.914
0.248
0.041
0.207
2.666
0.451
0.161
0.618
0.004
0.016
0.000
0.411
0.000
0.887
0.093
0.026
0.000
4.923
0.111
0.519
4.138
0.154
2015
98.029
0.000
0.000
0.000
25.963
6.309
7.426
12.228
3.052
0.261
0.042
0.218
2.792
0.464
0.163
0.646
0.004
0.017
0.000
0.410
0.000
0.956
0.105
0.027
0.000
5.427
0.114
0.626
4.527
0.160
2016
18.045
0.000
0.000
0.000
5.144
0.946
1.497
2.701
0.689
0.055
0.009
0.046
0.634
0.125
0.034
0.165
0.001
0.003
0.000
0.125
0.000
0.157
0.018
0.005
0.000
0.884
0.024
0.081
0.779
0.000
Q1
18.189
0.000
0.000
0.000
5.110
1.035
1.501
2.575
0.714
0.058
0.009
0.049
0.656
0.122
0.036
0.165
0.001
0.003
0.001
0.138
0.000
0.163
0.022
0.005
0.000
0.878
0.030
0.082
0.766
0.000
Q2
2011
18.315
0.000
0.000
0.000
5.084
1.194
1.357
2.533
0.622
0.059
0.009
0.050
0.563
0.113
0.034
0.127
0.001
0.004
0.001
0.110
0.000
0.152
0.017
0.005
0.000
0.869
0.041
0.082
0.746
0.000
Q3
18.471
0.000
0.000
0.000
5.220
1.211
1.448
2.561
0.645
0.065
0.012
0.052
0.581
0.124
0.033
0.131
0.001
0.004
0.001
0.123
0.000
0.140
0.019
0.005
0.000
0.880
0.034
0.081
0.765
0.000
Q4
18.770
0.000
0.000
0.000
5.680
1.300
1.496
2.884
0.636
0.056
0.010
0.045
0.580
0.122
0.030
0.087
0.000
0.003
0.001
0.154
0.000
0.166
0.011
0.006
0.000
0.949
0.027
0.048
0.875
0.000
Q1
18.868
0.000
0.000
0.000
4.961
0.990
1.498
2.473
0.669
0.057
0.011
0.046
0.612
0.119
0.040
0.117
0.000
0.004
0.000
0.107
0.000
0.204
0.015
0.006
0.000
0.854
0.024
0.081
0.750
0.000
Q2
2012
19.059
0.000
0.000
0.000
5.061
1.020
1.541
2.500
0.641
0.052
0.010
0.042
0.589
0.111
0.039
0.113
0.000
0.003
0.000
0.109
0.000
0.193
0.014
0.006
0.000
0.860
0.024
0.084
0.752
0.000
Q3
19.438
0.000
0.000
0.000
5.163
1.031
1.594
2.538
0.656
0.056
0.010
0.047
0.600
0.116
0.042
0.119
0.000
0.003
0.000
0.103
0.000
0.193
0.017
0.006
0.000
0.793
0.024
0.084
0.684
0.000
Q4
19.846
0.000
0.000
0.000
5.259
1.065
1.597
2.597
0.650
0.056
0.010
0.046
0.594
0.108
0.038
0.146
0.001
0.003
0.000
0.105
0.000
0.169
0.018
0.006
0.000
0.860
0.024
0.103
0.732
0.000
Q1
Table 13B-3: Total consumption of DRI/HBI in carbon crude steel production by country and region, 2008-2016 (m tonnes)
20.074
0.000
0.000
0.000
5.395
1.096
1.672
2.628
0.679
0.059
0.010
0.049
0.620
0.110
0.039
0.152
0.001
0.004
0.000
0.112
0.000
0.174
0.023
0.006
0.000
0.906
0.025
0.105
0.776
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
5.442
1.137
1.600
2.705
0.638
0.056
0.010
0.046
0.583
0.108
0.037
0.141
0.001
0.004
0.000
0.100
0.000
0.166
0.022
0.006
0.000
0.914
0.026
0.107
0.781
0.000
Q3
20.122
2013
Q2
20.461
0.000
0.000
0.000
5.533
1.140
1.629
2.764
0.652
0.058
0.011
0.047
0.595
0.109
0.038
0.144
0.001
0.004
0.000
0.101
0.000
0.169
0.022
0.006
0.000
0.895
0.026
0.104
0.765
0.000
Q4
Page2of2
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
13B-19
1.331
24.729
4.931
3.836
21.053
29.820
514.957
1.914
8.289
4.461
36.565
49.315
455.617
Canada
Mexico
USA
25.129
0.694
25.823
0.000
0.000
0.245
0.222
0.000
0.467
65.959
26.825
7.552
100.336
641.583
23.884
0.797
24.681
0.000
0.410
0.332
0.198
0.000
0.940
86.270
30.882
9.508
126.660
607.898
Indonesia
Malaysia
Thailand
Vietnam
Japan
South Korea
TOTAL ASIA
Data: CRU
Taiwan
India
China
31.924
Brazil
0.000
Argentina
0.000
4.816
6.024
TOTAL AFRICA
Venezuela
0.000
0.000
Other Africa
1.959
3.745
4.542
South Africa
21.439
0.000
0.000
Morocco
2.485
0.760
0.855
27.524
0.311
0.627
Egypt
2009
Algeria
Country
2008
713.564
126.462
9.274
34.808
82.379
0.934
0.000
0.386
0.548
0.000
0.000
28.999
0.694
28.305
557.169
41.374
29.374
4.558
7.442
30.285
1.023
0.000
26.790
2.472
5.676
0.000
4.583
0.000
0.570
0.523
2010
768.747
134.063
11.618
42.642
79.804
0.946
0.000
0.398
0.548
0.000
0.000
31.490
0.745
30.744
602.249
44.877
32.799
4.569
7.509
33.673
1.532
0.000
29.251
2.891
4.959
0.000
4.065
0.000
0.570
0.324
2011
790.348
135.082
11.804
42.499
80.778
1.322
0.000
0.409
0.565
0.347
0.000
33.912
0.806
33.106
620.032
46.955
34.341
4.846
7.768
34.957
1.493
0.000
30.291
3.173
5.213
0.000
4.092
0.000
0.570
0.550
2012
835.953
138.787
12.491
43.232
83.064
2.255
0.000
0.429
0.582
0.742
0.502
37.821
0.879
36.942
657.090
47.983
35.169
5.038
7.776
37.327
1.648
0.000
32.404
3.275
5.475
0.000
4.286
0.000
0.597
0.592
2013
877.201
142.904
13.215
44.229
85.460
3.538
0.000
0.458
0.594
0.991
1.494
41.958
0.926
41.032
688.802
48.911
35.755
5.211
7.946
39.024
1.743
0.000
33.911
3.370
5.699
0.000
4.452
0.000
0.630
0.617
2014
913.535
145.787
13.894
44.746
87.147
5.067
0.000
0.476
0.611
1.637
2.344
44.592
0.948
43.644
718.088
49.891
36.303
5.420
8.168
40.535
1.796
0.000
35.281
3.458
5.946
0.000
4.658
0.000
0.668
0.619
2015
945.866
148.050
14.426
44.942
88.682
5.974
0.000
0.492
0.625
1.888
2.969
47.317
1.038
46.279
744.525
51.107
37.147
5.627
8.334
41.800
1.845
0.000
36.502
3.453
6.199
0.000
4.860
0.000
0.704
0.635
2016
195.072
34.145
3.002
10.262
20.881
0.236
0.000
0.099
0.137
0.000
0.000
7.853
0.186
7.666
152.837
10.538
7.687
1.135
1.716
8.140
0.402
0.000
7.044
0.693
1.211
0.000
0.988
0.000
0.138
0.085
Q1
198.860
33.148
2.965
10.907
19.277
0.236
0.000
0.099
0.137
0.000
0.000
7.694
0.186
7.507
157.782
11.044
7.943
1.145
1.956
8.898
0.414
0.000
7.758
0.725
1.218
0.000
1.008
0.000
0.147
0.063
Q2
11.503
8.502
1.142
1.859
8.589
0.378
0.000
7.475
0.736
1.266
0.000
1.035
0.000
0.143
0.088
Q3
195.889
33.860
2.972
10.576
20.312
0.236
0.000
0.099
0.137
0.000
0.000
7.966
0.186
7.779
153.826
2011
178.926
32.909
2.678
10.897
19.334
0.236
0.000
0.099
0.137
0.000
0.000
7.978
0.186
7.791
137.803
11.791
8.666
1.148
1.977
8.046
0.337
0.000
6.972
0.736
1.264
0.000
1.034
0.000
0.142
0.088
Q4
195.044
33.148
2.968
10.399
19.781
0.238
0.000
0.101
0.137
0.000
0.000
7.846
0.185
7.661
153.812
11.980
8.820
1.167
1.993
8.361
0.328
0.000
7.233
0.801
1.327
0.000
1.036
0.000
0.143
0.148
Q1
194.999
33.619
2.922
10.633
20.064
0.316
0.000
0.102
0.142
0.072
0.000
8.373
0.196
8.177
152.692
11.597
8.442
1.205
1.950
8.737
0.364
0.000
7.589
0.783
1.312
0.000
1.046
0.000
0.140
0.125
Q2
11.690
8.582
1.235
1.873
8.975
0.394
0.000
7.776
0.805
1.278
0.000
1.006
0.000
0.143
0.129
Q3
197.195
33.712
2.918
10.627
20.167
0.371
0.000
0.102
0.146
0.123
0.000
8.578
0.210
8.368
154.533
2012
203.110
34.603
2.996
10.841
20.767
0.397
0.000
0.105
0.140
0.152
0.000
9.116
0.216
8.900
158.994
11.687
8.496
1.239
1.952
8.884
0.407
0.000
7.692
0.785
1.296
0.000
1.004
0.000
0.144
0.149
Q4
205.152
34.050
3.002
10.341
20.707
0.477
0.000
0.107
0.138
0.184
0.049
9.577
0.216
9.361
161.048
11.934
8.759
1.244
1.931
9.055
0.408
0.000
7.858
0.789
1.340
0.000
1.052
0.000
0.144
0.143
Q1
209.624
34.979
3.174
11.095
20.710
0.554
0.000
0.107
0.143
0.184
0.120
9.327
0.218
9.109
164.764
12.144
8.936
1.248
1.960
9.367
0.416
0.000
8.129
0.822
1.359
0.000
1.068
0.000
0.148
0.142
Q2
11.988
8.766
1.285
1.937
9.484
0.416
0.000
8.236
0.832
1.383
0.000
1.080
0.000
0.152
0.151
Q3
208.374
34.728
3.125
10.877
20.726
0.582
0.000
0.107
0.146
0.186
0.142
9.289
0.221
9.068
163.775
2013
Table 13B-4: Total consumption of pig iron/hot metal in carbon crude steel production by country and region, 2008-2016 (m tonnes)
212.803
35.030
3.189
10.919
20.921
0.642
0.000
0.108
0.155
0.188
0.191
9.629
0.225
9.404
167.503
11.917
8.709
1.261
1.947
9.421
0.408
0.000
8.181
0.833
1.394
0.000
1.085
0.000
0.154
0.155
Q4
Page1of2
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
13B-20
2.356
39.867
23.172
0.044
28.759
0.053
Ukraine
Other CIS
1.627
3.003
2.904
7.557
15.491
71.348
6.638
1.399
8.038
79.386
1.807
0.000
0.000
1.807
3.890
0.623
4.513
852.091
3.039
3.546
3.808
10.106
24.291
106.007
6.234
1.706
7.940
113.947
1.799
0.000
0.000
1.799
5.624
0.657
6.282
891.360
Slovakia
Spain
UK
Other EU-27
Total EU-27
Turkey
Other Non-EU
Total Non-EU
Iran
Saudi Arabia
Australia
New Zealand
TOTAL OCEANIA
Data: CRU
TOTAL WORLD
TOTAL EUROPE
Italy
Romania
1.024
1.273
5.884
19.978
29.094
Germany
Hungary
3.036
7.330
10.230
France
4.846
3.507
4.758
Czech Republic
10.586
0.007
0.430
Bulgaria
Poland
65.438
74.172
TOTAL CIS
Russia
Kazakhstan
2.747
2009
42.613
Country
2008
5.141
0.709
4.433
2.300
0.000
0.000
2.300
101.343
10.036
1.499
8.536
91.307
20.750
6.356
3.027
3.348
1.863
4.094
8.706
1.318
28.830
8.741
4.267
0.008
72.244
0.043
26.226
42.976
2.999
2011
4.150
0.775
3.375
2.498
0.000
0.000
2.498
102.117
10.290
1.211
9.078
91.828
20.407
7.031
2.947
3.564
1.846
3.998
8.661
1.288
29.121
8.856
4.101
0.007
78.655
0.040
28.020
47.633
2.963
2012
4.034
0.797
3.237
2.568
0.000
0.000
2.568
105.543
11.026
1.402
9.624
94.517
20.852
8.214
2.974
3.636
1.910
4.088
8.853
1.251
29.511
8.981
4.240
0.008
83.486
0.040
29.180
50.836
3.430
2013
4.108
0.825
3.283
2.649
0.000
0.000
2.649
109.261
11.797
1.494
10.303
97.464
21.412
8.578
3.014
3.727
1.986
4.271
9.098
1.255
30.541
9.141
4.435
0.008
86.487
0.041
29.620
53.289
3.537
2014
4.130
0.824
3.306
2.718
0.000
0.000
2.718
112.194
12.329
1.549
10.780
99.865
21.935
8.788
3.096
3.848
2.104
4.437
9.248
1.258
31.245
9.289
4.609
0.009
90.116
0.042
30.684
55.639
3.751
2015
4.149
0.829
3.320
2.822
0.000
0.000
2.822
115.459
12.972
1.582
11.390
102.487
22.457
8.911
3.214
3.919
2.184
4.509
9.809
1.267
31.916
9.524
4.769
0.009
92.285
0.043
31.903
56.301
4.038
2016
6.139
0.716
5.424
2.180
0.000
0.000
2.180
100.551
8.994
1.711
7.282
91.557
20.185
7.162
3.527
3.610
1.810
3.721
8.429
1.276
28.531
9.357
3.942
0.007
72.669
0.042
25.489
44.454
2.683
2010
261.048
1.477
0.179
1.299
0.599
0.000
0.000
0.599
25.749
2.453
0.467
1.986
23.297
5.565
1.638
0.845
0.935
0.471
0.954
1.964
0.310
7.386
2.139
1.087
0.002
18.261
0.010
6.530
10.937
0.785
Q1
266.793
1.359
0.178
1.181
0.571
0.000
0.000
0.571
26.653
2.514
0.394
2.120
24.138
5.588
1.682
0.864
0.822
0.416
1.069
2.287
0.335
7.693
2.271
1.108
0.002
18.190
0.011
6.606
10.783
0.790
Q2
1.352
0.171
1.181
0.562
0.000
0.000
0.562
24.950
2.481
0.315
2.166
22.469
4.888
1.575
0.672
0.815
0.494
1.040
2.176
0.340
7.153
2.232
1.083
0.002
17.821
0.012
6.564
10.500
0.744
Q3
261.932
2011
243.513
0.953
0.180
0.773
0.568
0.000
0.000
0.568
23.991
2.587
0.323
2.264
21.403
4.708
1.461
0.645
0.776
0.482
1.032
2.280
0.334
6.598
2.098
0.989
0.002
17.973
0.011
6.526
10.756
0.681
Q4
263.495
1.130
0.206
0.924
0.640
0.000
0.000
0.640
25.232
2.501
0.242
2.259
22.731
5.031
1.223
0.758
0.919
0.477
1.095
2.257
0.316
7.363
2.249
1.039
0.002
19.780
0.010
7.051
12.124
0.596
Q1
264.042
1.034
0.189
0.845
0.618
0.000
0.000
0.618
25.952
2.608
0.299
2.309
23.344
5.200
1.738
0.733
0.839
0.486
1.007
2.240
0.331
7.498
2.274
0.995
0.002
19.792
0.010
6.878
12.179
0.726
Q2
0.998
0.185
0.812
0.625
0.000
0.000
0.625
24.858
2.450
0.327
2.123
22.408
4.913
1.899
0.710
0.859
0.440
0.934
2.049
0.317
7.131
2.159
0.994
0.002
20.049
0.010
7.022
12.213
0.803
Q3
265.667
2012
1.005
0.200
0.805
0.625
0.000
0.000
0.625
26.124
2.651
0.339
2.312
23.472
5.215
2.012
0.746
0.897
0.451
0.950
2.178
0.324
7.357
2.286
1.054
0.002
20.315
0.010
7.261
12.189
0.855
Q1
271.688 275.550
0.987
0.194
0.793
0.615
0.000
0.000
0.615
26.075
2.730
0.343
2.387
23.345
5.263
2.170
0.746
0.946
0.443
0.961
2.115
0.324
7.128
2.174
1.073
0.002
19.034
0.010
7.068
11.118
0.837
Q4
282.364
1.011
0.200
0.811
0.632
0.000
0.000
0.632
27.078
2.839
0.351
2.488
24.239
5.291
2.067
0.774
0.894
0.497
1.062
2.366
0.335
7.564
2.344
1.043
0.002
21.150
0.010
7.372
12.909
0.859
Q2
Q3
279.948
0.996
0.194
0.802
0.651
0.000
0.000
0.651
25.764
2.720
0.345
2.376
23.044
5.051
2.037
0.718
0.920
0.486
1.018
2.073
0.314
7.237
2.156
1.032
0.002
21.308
0.010
7.431
13.003
0.864
2013
Table 13B-4: Total consumption of pig iron/hot metal in carbon crude steel production by country and region, 2008-2016 (m tonnes)
284.508
1.022
0.202
0.820
0.659
0.000
0.000
0.659
26.578
2.816
0.368
2.448
23.763
5.296
2.097
0.737
0.925
0.476
1.057
2.236
0.278
7.353
2.194
1.111
0.002
20.713
0.010
7.116
12.734
0.852
Q4
Page2of2
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
13B-21
9.3
8.8
4.0
17.9
44.6
16.6
9.3
0.0
0.0
5.5
5.2
16.2
0.0
9.4
31.4
148.5
14.9
16.0
52.3
5.2
6.3
53.1
1.9
0.5
0.5
12.4
0.0
0.0
10.8
10.3
699.5
82.7
Austria
Belgium
Finland
France
Germany
Italy
Netherlands
Norway
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
UK
Other W. Europe
Turkey
Eastern Europe
CIS
Canada
Mexico
USA
Other
Argentina
Brazil
Chile
Colombia
Peru
Venezuela
Other
Mauritania
South Africa
Other Africa
China
India
2007
705.9
86.9
0.0
9.6
8.9
6.7
48.0
1.8
0.4
0.2
11.0
0.0
14.9
16.3
48.6
4.7
10.1
26.5
137.5
9.2
9.4
4.0
18.0
41.3
15.5
8.6
0.0
0.0
5.3
4.9
15.0
0.0
2008
826.4
89.9
0.0
8.8
7.9
3.7
33.7
1.5
0.4
0.1
9.0
0.0
9.1
12.6
27.7
2.4
10.7
18.3
121.5
6.9
4.5
2.7
17.8
27.5
9.1
7.0
0.0
0.0
4.1
2.7
11.4
0.0
2009
894.5
92.6
0.0
9.8
8.1
6.4
42.0
1.0
0.4
0.1
6.1
0.0
13.2
15.5
39.0
4.3
11.6
23.0
127.8
11.4
6.8
3.7
18.4
40.6
12.7
11.0
0.0
0.0
5.0
4.7
10.8
0.0
2010
0.0
8.7
5.9
0.53
952.3
95.0
7.0
45.2
1.9
0.4
0.1
8.6
0.1
13.0
16.8
43.7
5.0
12.4
22.2
134.9
12.2
6.1
3.6
18.4
39.9
14.4
11.7
0.0
0.0
5.0
4.5
9.9
0.0
2011
1,002.7
102.7
0.0
9.9
6.8
7.3
49.3
2.1
0.4
0.2
8.3
0.1
13.5
17.2
46.9
5.0
12.5
23.3
141.6
9.4
5.5
3.3
18.3
41.1
14.9
10.4
0.0
0.0
4.4
4.6
9.6
0.0
2012
1,065.0
110.5
0.0
10.2
7.8
7.4
51.6
2.2
0.4
0.1
9.2
0.1
14.0
18.0
49.6
5.1
12.9
24.4
149.2
9.7
5.7
3.4
18.3
43.5
15.1
8.1
0.0
0.0
4.8
4.9
10.0
0.0
2013
1,121.0
118.6
0.0
10.6
9.1
7.5
55.0
2.3
0.5
0.1
9.8
0.1
14.3
18.7
52.8
5.3
13.4
25.3
158.4
9.9
6.0
3.6
18.4
44.7
15.6
8.3
0.0
0.0
4.9
4.9
10.3
0.0
2014
1,175.3
125.6
0.0
11.0
10.3
7.7
57.1
2.4
0.5
0.1
10.1
0.1
14.6
19.1
55.4
5.7
14.2
26.0
162.7
10.1
6.2
3.7
18.4
45.7
15.8
8.3
0.0
0.0
5.0
5.0
10.5
0.0
2015
1,223.0
133.4
0.0
11.5
11.4
8.0
59.1
2.5
0.5
0.1
10.4
0.1
14.9
20.0
54.8
5.8
14.8
26.3
166.7
10.3
6.3
3.7
18.6
46.6
16.8
8.3
0.0
0.0
4.5
5.2
10.7
0.0
2016
1,297.4
244.6
0.0
12.4
13.8
8.8
68.2
3.0
0.5
0.2
13.8
0.3
16.1
23.3
56.4
5.6
18.4
28.7
177.3
10.4
6.8
2.8
18.1
47.3
16.8
9.3
0.0
0.0
5.4
6.1
12.5
0.0
2021
4.5%
8.0%
0.0%
1.0%
2.1%
2.4%
1.8%
3.4%
0.7%
-5.6%
0.8%
0.0%
0.6%
2.7%
0.5%
0.6%
4.9%
-0.6%
1.3%
0.8%
-1.8%
-2.5%
0.0%
0.4%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-0.2%
1.1%
-1.9%
0.0%
Average
Annual
Growth
2007-2021
Table 13B-5: Consumption of Pellets, Sinter Fines & Lump, 2007-2021 (m tonnes)
Page1of2
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
13B-22
1,550.7
42.4
131.1
174.2
84.4
68.2
18.6
1,022.9
9.0
9.5
0.0
1,553.5
23.1
137.4
189.3
88.4
74.6
21.1
1,010.1
9.5
Australia
New Zealand
Total
of which: unaccounted
imports/stock changes
Western Europe
Other Europe & CIS
North America
South America
Africa
Asia
Oceania
Data: CRU
9.0
0.0
2.1
138.2
2.7
43.6
17.1
22.3
1.7
1.9
137.3
2.9
46.1
16.5
23.9
1.6
2008
Indonesia
Japan
Malaysia
South Korea
Taiwan
Middle East
Other Asia
2007
16.7
93.6
150.5
51.7
48.5
16.7
1,110.5
6.4
1,494.7
6.4
0.0
1.8
106.5
3.4
40.3
14.6
26.1
1.4
2009
58.4
125.1
162.4
72.0
56.1
17.8
1,227.1
8.7
1,727.6
8.7
0.0
2.0
131.0
3.6
52.0
18.8
30.5
2.2
2010
48.2
125.6
169.4
78.5
63.3
14.6
1,300.5
7.7
1,807.9
7.7
0.0
1.5
129.0
3.6
62.8
20.9
33.1
2.2
2011
23.0
121.6
177.4
82.6
67.8
16.7
1,362.7
5.1
1,856.8
5.1
0.0
2.0
129.6
3.7
64.2
21.4
34.3
2.3
2012
23.0
123.5
186.4
86.7
71.1
18.0
1,440.8
5.3
1,954.9
5.3
0.0
2.6
132.1
3.7
65.3
22.4
36.7
2.5
2013
23.0
126.5
197.1
91.1
75.2
19.7
1,515.9
5.4
2,054.0
5.4
0.0
3.9
135.7
3.7
67.4
23.4
39.5
2.6
2014
23.0
128.8
202.9
94.8
78.0
21.3
1,584.4
5.6
2,138.8
5.6
0.0
4.8
137.1
3.9
68.9
24.5
41.4
2.8
2015
24.0
130.9
207.8
95.4
80.7
22.9
1,647.5
5.6
2,214.9
5.6
0.0
5.8
139.4
3.7
70.4
26.0
42.8
3.0
2016
28.0
135.4
224.3
101.5
94.8
26.3
1,856.1
5.8
2,472.1
5.8
0.0
8.8
138.6
3.8
78.8
27.4
53.3
3.5
2021
-0.1%
1.2%
1.0%
1.7%
1.6%
4.4%
-3.4%
3.4%
-3.4%
0.0%
10.9%
0.0%
2.4%
4.3%
3.4%
6.4%
5.1%
Average
Annual
Growth
2007-2021
Table 13B-5: Consumption of Pellets, Sinter Fines & Lump, 2007-2021 (m tonnes)
Page2of2
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
13B-23
3.95
7.70
2.14
15.58
23.19
7.63
3.49
0.00
0.00
3.96
0.00
12.29
0.00
4.46
16.97
106.22
0.37
1.20
3.91
0.00
1.01
27.40
0.00
0.38
0.00
2.39
0.00
0.00
3.22
3.21
Austria
Belgium
Finland
France
Germany
Italy
Netherlands
Norway
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
UK
Other W. Europe
Turkey
Eastern Europe
CIS
Canada
Mexico
USA
Other
Argentina
Brazil
Chile
Colombia
Peru
Venezuela
Other
Mauritania
South Africa
Other Africa
2007
0.00
3.22
2.29
1.01
27.40
0.00
0.35
0.00
2.13
0.00
0.38
1.20
3.67
0.00
4.81
15.74
96.89
3.98
7.92
2.17
15.42
23.25
7.63
3.49
0.00
0.00
3.77
0.00
11.37
0.00
2008
0.00
3.22
1.87
1.28
23.32
0.00
0.36
0.00
1.74
0.00
0.49
1.20
1.34
0.00
4.37
10.98
86.63
3.78
3.56
1.54
15.27
20.93
4.96
3.08
0.00
0.00
2.79
0.00
8.53
0.00
2009
0.00
3.22
1.87
1.28
25.07
0.00
0.37
0.00
1.17
0.00
0.49
1.20
1.90
0.00
5.24
12.23
90.19
3.81
5.40
1.89
15.12
21.97
6.30
3.32
0.00
0.00
3.41
0.00
7.40
0.00
2010
0.00
3.22
1.37
1.38
26.69
0.00
0.33
0.00
1.66
0.00
0.49
1.20
2.39
0.00
5.68
12.10
95.39
3.83
5.44
1.70
14.97
19.78
7.55
3.08
0.00
0.00
3.38
0.00
6.80
0.00
2011
0.00
3.22
1.89
1.38
28.42
0.00
0.36
0.00
1.60
0.00
0.49
1.20
2.79
0.00
6.12
12.32
100.87
4.06
4.94
0.00
14.82
19.83
7.81
3.24
0.00
0.00
3.03
0.00
6.27
0.00
2012
0.00
3.22
2.01
1.38
29.85
0.00
0.37
0.00
1.78
0.00
0.49
1.20
2.94
0.00
6.38
12.53
107.08
4.26
5.14
0.00
14.67
19.88
7.81
3.49
0.00
0.00
3.25
0.00
6.53
0.00
2013
0.00
3.22
2.14
1.38
30.97
0.00
0.38
0.00
1.89
0.00
0.49
1.20
3.05
0.00
6.55
13.00
112.83
4.34
5.36
0.00
14.52
19.92
8.03
3.65
0.00
0.00
3.35
0.00
6.71
0.00
2014
0.00
3.22
2.29
1.38
31.42
0.00
0.38
0.00
1.96
0.00
0.49
1.20
3.13
0.00
6.90
13.37
117.52
4.45
5.56
0.00
14.38
19.97
8.25
3.69
0.00
0.00
3.43
0.00
6.85
0.00
2015
0.00
3.22
2.39
1.38
31.87
0.00
0.39
0.00
2.00
0.00
0.49
1.20
3.08
0.00
7.23
13.46
122.11
4.55
5.66
0.00
14.23
20.02
8.70
3.69
0.00
0.00
3.07
0.00
6.96
0.00
2016
0.00
4.60
2.81
1.56
36.35
0.00
0.42
0.00
2.65
0.00
0.49
2.07
2.94
0.00
9.63
14.26
125.78
4.42
6.08
0.00
13.44
18.23
8.83
3.69
0.00
0.00
3.66
0.00
8.15
0.00
2021
0.0%
2.6%
-0.9%
3.2%
2.0%
0.0%
0.7%
0.0%
0.8%
0.0%
2.1%
3.9%
-2.0%
0.0%
5.7%
-1.2%
1.2%
0.8%
-1.7%
-100.0%
-1.1%
-1.7%
1.0%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
-0.6%
0.0%
-2.9%
0.0%
Average
Annual
Growth
2007-2021
Page1of2
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
13B-24
921.63
59.38
4.25
93.04
0.00
57.86
18.73
3.62
2.16
2021
3.56
0.00
68.62
107.66
3.59
27.90
5.09
837.53
5.84
5.84
0.00
66.53
113.16
4.08
30.07
4.59
878.86
4.31
4.31
0.00
63.99
119.30
4.49
31.76
5.11
917.32
2.80
2.80
0.00
2.86
0.00
2.88
0.00
2.91
0.00
3.52
0.00
65.02
65.88
66.57
66.88
66.50
125.99 132.38 137.79 142.81 149.68
4.64
4.75
4.83
4.78
5.50
33.39
34.62
35.14
35.65
40.98
5.23
5.36
5.51
5.61
7.41
966.04 1008.55 1049.01 1080.84 1160.67
2.83
2.86
2.88
2.91
3.52
2.83
0.00
64.44
101.98
3.04
26.71
5.09
738.22
3.56
862.98
45.46
2.72
93.59
0.00
52.18
18.59
3.04
2.29
2016
79.01
117.44
5.25
30.88
5.51
690.25
4.45
834.26
46.66
2.05
92.05
0.00
51.09
17.70
3.04
2.17
2015
798.23
45.97
1.36
91.09
0.00
49.99
16.86
3.04
2.02
2014
932.80
762.14
45.29
0.48
88.66
0.00
48.43
16.06
3.04
1.93
2013
Total 948.31
of which:
Western Europe
79.95
Other Europe & CIS 127.64
North America
5.48
South America
31.18
Africa
6.43
Asia 693.21
Oceania
4.41
Data: Table 35 plus Table 33
719.26
43.43
0.00
86.99
0.00
47.58
15.29
3.04
1.73
2012
4.45
0.00
684.31
41.24
0.00
86.63
0.00
47.58
14.57
2.84
1.69
2011
4.41
0.00
649.50
36.46
0.00
92.97
0.00
40.38
13.87
2.65
1.70
2010
Australia
New Zealand
578.99
35.40
0.00
75.63
0.00
32.73
11.71
2.65
1.11
2009
517.83
35.11
0.00
90.11
0.00
34.69
11.63
2.50
1.34
509.97
37.57
0.00
91.02
0.00
35.81
11.99
2.65
1.24
2008
China
India
Indonesia
Japan
Malaysia
South Korea
Taiwan
Middle East
Other Asia
2007
-1.3%
1.1%
0.0%
2.0%
1.0%
3.8%
-1.6%
3.0%
-1.6%
0.0%
4.2%
3.8%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
3.7%
3.5%
2.7%
3.5%
Average
Annual
Growth
2007-2021
Page2of2
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
13B-25
2.06
0.59
0.09
0.60
10.01
2.44
0.71
0.00
0.00
0.61
0.00
1.18
0.00
0.09
0.18
0.45
0.21
0.57
0.15
0.00
1.90
21.26
0.56
0.08
0.10
2.21
0.00
0.00
7.13
0.53
Austria
Belgium
Finland
France
Germany
Italy
Netherlands
Norway
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
UK
Other W. Europe
Turkey
Eastern Europe
CIS
Canada
Mexico
USA
Other
Argentina
Brazil
Chile
Colombia
Peru
Venezuela
Other
Mauritania
South Africa
Other Africa
2007
0.00
6.11
0.43
1.80
19.48
0.58
0.07
0.08
1.96
0.00
0.16
0.67
0.13
0.00
1.67
0.69
0.41
1.96
0.63
0.09
0.60
4.34
2.52
0.19
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.00
1.08
0.00
2008
0.00
5.29
0.39
1.35
10.01
0.50
0.07
0.11
1.60
0.00
0.08
0.51
0.08
0.00
1.59
0.55
0.36
1.17
0.33
0.06
0.60
0.02
1.10
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.36
0.00
0.47
0.00
2009
0.00
6.19
0.39
1.27
13.62
0.33
0.07
0.11
1.08
0.00
0.13
0.61
0.11
0.00
1.94
0.75
0.38
3.88
0.50
0.08
0.60
5.89
1.68
0.16
0.00
0.00
0.18
0.00
0.32
0.00
2010
0.00
5.08
0.34
1.49
15.77
0.72
0.07
0.12
1.54
0.06
0.12
0.67
0.12
0.00
2.07
0.73
0.40
4.56
0.50
0.08
0.60
9.50
0.73
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.41
0.00
2011
0.00
6.21
0.39
1.80
18.67
1.03
0.07
0.15
1.47
0.13
0.12
0.68
0.13
0.00
1.70
0.76
0.42
1.90
0.45
0.08
0.60
10.37
0.76
0.14
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.59
0.00
2012
0.00
6.55
0.40
1.82
19.53
1.43
0.07
0.14
1.64
0.12
0.12
0.69
0.14
0.00
1.67
0.80
0.45
2.13
0.47
0.08
0.60
11.97
0.87
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.47
0.00
2013
0.00
6.93
0.42
1.83
20.98
1.39
0.08
0.14
1.74
0.12
0.11
0.71
0.14
0.00
1.86
0.83
0.47
2.18
0.49
0.08
0.60
12.58
0.93
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.42
0.00
2014
0.00
7.29
0.43
1.88
21.44
1.78
0.08
0.14
1.81
0.12
0.11
0.73
0.14
0.00
1.96
0.85
0.48
2.26
0.51
0.08
0.60
13.02
0.84
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.36
0.00
2015
0.00
7.81
0.45
1.91
21.37
1.91
0.08
0.15
1.85
0.13
0.10
0.75
0.14
0.00
2.06
0.86
0.49
2.25
0.53
0.08
0.60
13.40
0.93
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.30
0.00
2016
0.00
7.16
0.49
2.04
25.01
1.83
0.08
0.22
2.02
0.26
0.15
0.91
0.14
0.00
2.68
0.93
0.52
2.45
0.56
0.06
0.50
13.91
0.71
0.16
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.32
0.00
2021
0.0%
0.0%
-0.6%
0.5%
1.2%
8.8%
0.7%
5.8%
-0.6%
0.0%
-2.4%
3.5%
-0.1%
0.0%
27.6%
12.3%
1.0%
1.2%
-0.4%
-2.6%
-1.3%
2.4%
-8.5%
-10.1%
0.0%
0.0%
-26.8%
0.0%
-8.9%
0.0%
Average
Annual
Growth
2007-2021
Page1of2
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
13B-26
208.38
4.21
2.50
0.67
13.65
5.68
180.94
0.73
202.56
11.44
2.77
0.97
23.98
6.54
155.50
1.36
Total 198.78
of which:
Western Europe
18.28
Other Europe & CIS
0.72
North America
0.92
South America
26.10
Africa
7.66
Asia 143.30
Oceania
1.81
Data: Table 22 plus Table 24
0.73
0.00
1.36
0.00
1.81
0.00
Australia
New Zealand
106.67
38.60
0.00
25.23
0.09
7.23
1.95
0.83
0.34
2009
58.36
36.56
0.00
37.01
0.07
7.59
2.79
0.50
0.41
71.79
36.62
0.00
35.95
0.08
7.88
2.38
0.42
0.38
2008
China
India
Indonesia
Japan
Malaysia
South Korea
Taiwan
Middle East
Other Asia
2007
13.29
3.07
0.85
16.50
6.58
169.14
1.38
210.81
1.38
0.00
89.12
38.58
0.00
28.51
0.10
8.97
2.34
1.00
0.52
2010
16.56
3.20
0.91
19.76
5.42
180.26
1.20
227.31
1.20
0.00
98.92
31.58
0.00
33.53
0.10
11.63
3.23
0.75
0.52
2011
14.91
2.89
0.93
23.32
6.60
180.97
1.11
230.73
1.11
0.00
102.02
28.27
0.00
33.56
0.10
12.96
3.16
0.37
0.53
2012
16.76
2.92
0.95
24.77
6.95
187.56
1.23
241.13
1.23
0.00
106.34
29.05
0.20
34.21
0.10
13.19
3.44
0.44
0.59
2013
17.46
3.16
0.97
26.28
7.34
195.95
1.72
252.87
1.72
0.00
111.86
29.77
0.56
35.15
0.10
13.61
3.65
0.63
0.62
2014
17.86
3.29
0.98
27.25
7.73
200.84
1.47
259.41
1.47
0.00
115.53
29.65
0.84
35.52
0.10
13.91
3.80
0.82
0.67
2015
18.27
3.41
1.00
27.39
8.26
209.47
1.66
269.46
1.66
0.00
120.83
31.31
1.11
36.11
0.10
14.21
4.11
0.99
0.70
2016
18.67
4.13
1.21
31.47
7.65
266.76
1.14
331.03
1.14
0.00
123.92
81.19
1.74
36.02
0.10
16.48
4.59
2.11
0.60
2021
0.2%
13.3%
1.9%
1.3%
0.0%
4.5%
-3.2%
3.7%
-3.2%
0.0%
5.5%
5.9%
0.0%
-0.2%
2.4%
5.7%
3.6%
10.8%
2.8%
Average
Annual
Growth
2007-2021
Page2of2
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
13B-27
3.24
0.48
1.74
1.77
11.36
6.54
5.10
0.00
0.00
0.97
5.25
2.77
0.00
4.86
14.24
41.79
14.32
14.27
48.22
5.20
3.41
4.40
1.33
0.00
0.40
7.79
0.00
0.00
0.49
6.56
Austria
Belgium
Finland
France
Germany
Italy
Netherlands
Norway
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
UK
Other W. Europe
Turkey
Eastern Europe
CIS
Canada
Mexico
USA
Other
Argentina
Brazil
Chile
Colombia
Peru
Venezuela
Other
Mauritania
South Africa
Other Africa
2007
0.00
0.31
6.22
3.85
1.15
1.25
0.00
0.11
6.94
0.00
14.34
14.40
44.76
4.67
3.64
10.08
40.23
3.22
0.80
1.73
1.98
13.67
5.30
4.96
0.00
0.00
1.46
4.93
2.57
0.00
2008
0.00
0.32
5.66
1.07
0.37
1.02
0.00
0.00
5.67
0.00
8.53
10.91
26.24
2.36
4.71
6.82
34.49
1.94
0.66
1.06
1.96
6.51
3.03
3.82
0.00
0.00
0.94
2.70
2.37
0.00
2009
0.00
0.35
5.82
3.86
3.30
0.72
0.00
0.00
3.83
0.00
12.53
13.72
37.03
4.32
4.44
9.97
37.21
3.74
0.91
1.70
2.66
12.70
4.76
7.50
0.00
0.00
1.41
4.74
3.08
0.00
2010
0.00
0.42
4.16
4.16
2.76
1.14
0.00
0.00
5.42
0.00
12.36
14.92
41.21
4.98
4.60
9.34
39.15
3.84
0.12
1.84
2.81
10.58
6.15
8.50
0.00
0.00
1.55
4.46
2.71
0.00
2011
0.00
0.45
4.55
4.17
2.23
1.10
0.00
0.00
5.20
0.00
12.85
15.34
44.00
5.02
4.67
10.18
40.32
3.41
0.11
3.27
2.92
10.89
6.36
7.00
0.00
0.00
1.39
4.57
2.74
0.00
2012
0.00
0.45
5.34
4.18
2.19
0.78
0.00
0.00
5.80
0.00
13.39
16.12
46.49
5.08
4.82
11.07
41.66
3.27
0.12
3.35
3.06
11.64
6.43
4.50
0.00
0.00
1.49
4.86
3.00
0.00
2013
0.00
0.45
6.52
4.25
3.00
0.90
0.00
0.00
6.15
0.00
13.68
16.82
49.65
5.27
5.03
11.49
45.07
3.34
0.12
3.52
3.23
12.21
6.64
4.50
0.00
0.00
1.54
4.94
3.15
0.00
2014
0.00
0.45
7.60
4.39
4.24
0.60
0.00
0.00
6.38
0.00
13.95
17.20
52.17
5.69
5.29
11.82
44.71
3.43
0.13
3.58
3.40
12.72
6.75
4.50
0.00
0.00
1.57
5.05
3.27
0.00
2015
0.00
0.45
8.54
4.68
5.86
0.60
0.00
0.00
6.52
0.00
14.30
18.02
51.57
5.77
5.55
11.93
44.13
3.48
0.13
3.60
3.72
13.20
7.14
4.50
0.00
0.00
1.41
5.20
3.40
0.00
2016
0.00
0.65
10.54
5.23
6.80
1.19
0.00
0.00
9.08
0.00
15.45
20.34
53.33
5.64
6.08
13.47
50.99
3.51
0.14
2.72
4.12
15.17
7.28
5.50
0.00
0.00
1.70
6.09
4.01
0.00
2021
0.0%
2.0%
3.4%
3.1%
3.2%
-0.8%
0.0%
-100.0%
1.1%
0.0%
0.5%
2.6%
0.7%
0.6%
1.6%
-0.4%
1.4%
0.6%
-8.2%
3.2%
6.2%
2.1%
0.8%
0.5%
0.0%
0.0%
4.1%
1.1%
2.7%
0.0%
Average
Annual
Growth
2007-2021
Page1of2
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
13B-28
372.86
40.61
53.95
78.17
13.30
6.53
177.14
3.15
3.24
0.00
383.31
39.20
60.90
82.01
17.33
7.06
173.57
3.24
Australia
New Zealand
Total
of which:
Western Europe
Other Europe & CIS
North America
South America
Africa
Asia
Oceania
Data: Table 9 plus Table 7
3.15
0.00
123.34
11.08
2.07
11.11
2.67
1.30
2.73
19.29
0.00
124.15
12.68
1.88
10.28
2.81
2.36
2.17
20.81
0.00
2008
China
India
Indonesia
Japan
Malaysia
South Korea
Taiwan
Middle East
Other Asia
2007
24.98
46.02
48.04
8.11
5.97
191.38
2.11
326.62
2.11
0.00
140.76
15.94
1.79
5.69
3.34
0.35
0.90
22.61
0.00
2009
43.21
51.63
67.60
11.70
6.17
220.42
1.43
402.15
1.43
0.00
155.83
17.52
1.98
9.49
3.47
2.68
2.61
26.85
0.00
2010
42.55
53.08
73.47
13.48
4.58
241.42
2.20
430.78
2.20
0.00
169.09
22.14
1.54
8.89
3.55
3.56
3.11
29.55
0.00
2011
42.66
55.17
77.21
12.70
5.00
264.44
1.15
458.33
1.15
0.00
181.38
31.00
1.95
9.03
3.62
3.63
2.97
30.86
0.00
2012
41.73
57.54
81.08
12.95
5.79
287.24
1.26
487.60
1.26
0.00
196.50
36.19
1.93
9.21
3.64
3.70
2.89
33.19
0.00
2013
43.18
61.58
85.42
14.30
6.97
311.41
0.86
523.71
0.86
0.00
210.92
42.83
2.00
9.46
3.63
3.81
2.92
35.84
0.00
2014
44.40
61.83
89.00
15.61
8.05
334.58
1.20
554.66
1.20
0.00
225.49
49.31
1.92
9.56
3.78
3.90
3.04
37.58
0.00
2015
45.77
61.60
89.65
17.66
8.99
357.23
1.06
581.96
1.06
0.00
239.21
56.61
1.98
9.72
3.62
3.98
3.29
38.82
0.00
2016
50.25
70.54
94.76
22.30
11.19
428.67
1.13
678.84
1.13
0.00
251.84
104.04
2.76
9.54
3.73
4.45
4.04
47.53
0.73
2021
1.8%
1.1%
1.0%
1.8%
3.3%
6.7%
-7.3%
4.2%
-7.3%
0.0%
5.2%
17.4%
2.1%
-1.1%
2.4%
9.2%
2.9%
6.7%
0.0%
Average
Annual
Growth
2007-2021
Page2of2
Statistical Review
Page1of2
Table 13B-9: Total coke consumption by country and region, 2008-2016 (m tonnes)
2008
Country
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Algeria
0.734
0.688
0.414
0.519
0.529
0.515
0.524
0.548
0.558
Egypt
5.089
4.990
5.077
5.108
5.134
4.484
6.458
7.224
7.735
South Africa
3.007
2.550
2.833
3.350
3.187
3.131
3.178
3.270
3.215
Other Africa
TOTAL AFRICA
2.558
1.976
2.077
0.421
0.597
0.811
1.471
1.801
2.245
11.388
10.203
10.400
9.398
9.447
8.941
11.631
12.842
13.753
5.376
4.142
4.376
5.068
4.892
4.824
4.923
5.085
5.220
Argentina
3.753
1.632
3.726
3.826
4.024
3.441
4.113
4.208
4.537
Brazil
9.654
7.422
9.447
10.335
10.958
12.106
12.400
13.003
13.333
Colombia
1.561
0.794
0.643
1.292
0.263
0.157
0.154
0.156
0.162
11.694
8.996
8.473
10.455
10.379
8.446
11.608
12.244
12.674
26.661
18.844
22.289
25.908
25.624
24.150
28.274
29.611
30.706
Canada
5.228
3.125
4.430
4.101
4.213
4.183
4.470
4.564
4.656
Mexico
10.798
7.957
9.912
10.813
11.357
9.414
12.135
12.409
12.891
USA
15.554
9.939
12.749
14.292
15.967
16.639
18.612
20.034
19.854
31.580
21.021
27.091
29.205
31.537
30.236
35.217
37.007
37.400
291.071
344.129
372.375
401.293
431.406
461.000
471.956
494.897
504.035
32.711
32.358
36.142
37.719
42.320
41.748
48.014
50.295
52.757
Pakistan
1.540
0.560
0.593
0.845
1.327
1.603
1.646
1.687
1.728
0.003
0.005
0.006
0.006
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
34.254
32.924
36.740
38.571
43.650
43.354
49.663
51.985
54.488
Thailand
0.052
0.118
0.309
0.109
0.124
0.181
0.157
0.171
0.196
Vietnam
0.236
0.154
0.300
0.650
0.552
0.494
0.502
0.517
0.550
4.779
5.252
5.614
5.704
5.902
4.728
6.647
7.451
7.804
5.067
5.523
6.223
6.463
6.578
5.403
7.305
8.138
8.550
Japan
35.597
28.406
33.445
34.008
35.817
36.231
36.165
36.980
37.252
South Korea
10.482
9.687
13.285
15.266
15.883
16.596
16.074
17.460
17.762
China
India
Taiwan
Total North East Asia
TOTAL ASIA
4.183
3.788
4.862
5.616
5.501
6.074
6.203
6.436
6.736
50.262
41.881
51.592
54.890
57.201
58.901
58.441
60.876
61.751
380.655
424.457
466.930
501.217
538.836
568.66
587.37
615.90
628.82
Data: CRU.
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
13B-29
Statistical Review
Page2of2
Table 13B-9: Total coke consumption by country and region, 2008-2016 (m tonnes)
Country
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
3.212
3.040
3.117
2.639
3.372
3.925
4.031
4.079
4.111
Russia
31.932
28.590
30.354
33.189
33.778
33.679
37.591
38.686
39.591
Ukraine
18.214
15.226
16.087
16.750
18.741
19.392
19.708
20.398
20.940
Kazakhstan
Other CIS
TOTAL CIS
0.015
0.021
0.045
0.029
0.032
0.029
0.029
0.029
0.029
53.373
46.877
49.603
52.608
55.922
57.025
61.358
63.191
64.671
Austria
2.674
2.333
2.666
2.540
2.686
2.867
2.845
2.874
2.874
Belgium
2.450
1.169
1.369
1.558
1.336
1.557
1.527
1.583
1.611
Czech Republic
2.797
2.101
2.607
2.675
2.584
2.719
2.773
2.838
2.920
France
3.995
2.941
3.556
3.701
3.531
3.784
3.669
3.736
3.741
Finland
1.324
1.003
1.175
1.198
1.190
1.161
1.183
1.201
1.064
Germany
12.354
8.924
11.378
11.978
11.620
12.570
12.810
13.105
13.396
Hungary
0.738
0.659
0.731
0.675
0.790
0.847
0.834
0.844
0.852
Italy
4.389
2.617
3.937
3.778
4.282
4.491
4.453
4.518
4.723
Netherlands
2.048
1.620
1.785
1.997
1.905
1.929
1.898
1.904
1.905
Poland
3.552
1.938
3.676
2.533
2.831
3.390
3.436
3.520
3.462
Romania
1.817
0.900
0.993
0.720
1.081
1.209
1.227
1.251
1.196
Slovakia
1.631
1.458
1.736
1.655
1.620
1.625
1.619
1.650
1.667
Spain
1.984
1.468
2.276
2.149
1.880
1.805
1.782
1.801
1.673
Sweden
1.440
1.091
1.314
1.303
1.341
1.378
1.369
1.384
1.412
UK
4.116
3.210
3.232
3.019
2.985
2.811
2.745
2.797
2.809
Other EU-27
0.316
0.152
0.091
0.123
0.103
0.093
0.093
0.093
0.093
Total EU-27
47.626
33.583
42.521
41.600
41.767
44.235
44.263
45.098
45.399
Serbia
0.936
0.635
0.509
0.600
0.594
0.687
0.697
0.713
0.722
Turkey
3.470
3.739
3.911
4.141
4.321
4.542
4.633
4.842
5.039
Other non-EU
1.052
0.605
0.954
1.448
1.155
0.896
0.884
0.891
0.905
Total Non-EU
4.523
4.344
4.865
5.589
5.476
5.437
5.517
5.732
5.944
TOTAL EUROPE
52.148
37.927
47.385
47.189
47.243
49.673
49.780
50.831
51.344
Iran
12.266
13.106
15.680
17.303
14.552
13.087
17.733
18.620
19.392
9.561
10.246
12.763
14.197
14.844
13.090
19.242
20.124
20.606
21.827
23.352
28.443
31.501
29.396
26.176
36.976
38.744
39.999
Australia
2.345
2.032
0.133
1.868
1.753
1.441
1.425
1.452
1.471
Other Oceania
0.007
0.004
0.008
0.013
0.011
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
TOTAL OCEANIA
2.352
2.036
0.142
1.881
1.764
1.451
1.435
1.462
1.481
579.985
584.717
652.284
698.906
739.768
766.309
812.037
849.584
868.176
TOTAL WORLD
Data: CRU.
Use of this Report is subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Important Notice.
13B-30