- Impact of cokemaking technology on costs and greenhouse gas emissions for different steel works configurations - Regional implications that drive cokemaking technology selection - Identifying implementation niches for the available cokemaking technologies Author: Ian Cameron, Senior Director - Iron & Steel, HATCH, Canada

2. Cokemaking in an Integrated Steel Works
Technology, Location and Greenhouse
Gases
Ian Cameron
Senior Director – Iron & Steel, Hatch Ltd.
Met Coke World Summit 2010
November 1-3, 2010, Pittsburgh, PA

3. Themes
Important strategic considerations for coke supply to an integrated
steel works
• Theme 1
– Impact of cokemaking technology on
greenhouse gas emissions and costs for different
integrated steel works configurations
• Theme 2
– Regional implications that drive cokemaking
technology selection
• Theme 3
– Identifying implementation niches for the
available cokemaking technologies

4. Theme 1:
Impact of Cokemaking Technology on
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Costs for
Different Integrated Steel Works Configurations

5. Cokemaking Technologies
Considered
• Basic Technologies
– By-Product Battery
– Heat Recovery Battery
– Stamp Charging
• Energy Efficiency Technologies
– Coke Dry Quenching
– Coal Moisture Control

6. Technology Advantages
Each basic cokemaking technology brings some key advantages
Aspect By-Product Heat Stamp
Coke Plant Recovery Charging
Coke Plant
US EPA Best Available √
Technology
Coke Oven Gas √
Available for Heating
By-Products for Sale √
Improved Coke Quality √
Simple Operation √ √
Flexible Coal Selection √ √
Small Plant Foot Print √

7. Traditional Integrated Steelworks (ISW)
ISW with By-Product Coke Plant, Sinter Plant and Blast Furnace Operations to produce
Hot Rolled Coil (HRC)

8. Integrated Steel Works with a Heat Recovery Coke Plant
More export power is produced but a supplemental fuel gas like Natural Gas is needed
for heating purposes

9. Where to draw the GHG Box?
Capturing the entire carbon cycle on a life cycle basis is needed to
make objective comparisons
• Scope 1, 2 and 3 greenhouse gas emissions
– Scope 1: From fuel combustion and industrial processes in the ISW
– Scope 2: Indirect emissions from coal or oil fired power plant
– Scope 3: Indirect emissions from pellets, limestone and oxygen
– Used to prevent double counting and account for all upstream GHGs related to
steel production
• Important to have a common and saleable end product like Hot
Rolled Coil (HRC)

10. Scope 1 – CO2 Emissions are Similar for both Technologies
Virtually all carbon input is released as CO2 except small amounts in by-products and HRC
By-Product Coke Plant
97.3% of input C emitted as CO2
Heat Recovery Coke Plant
99.8% of input C emitted as CO2
Heat-Recovery Coke Plant
Sinter Plant
Coal
67%
Blast Furnace
Carbon
Dioxide
BOF Steelmaking Emission
99.8%
Anthracite 4%
Continuous Caster
PCI
22%
External Scrap 0.02% Power Plant
Limestone 2%
Dolomite 2%
Natural Gas 3% Hot Strip Mill
HRC 0.2%

11. Scope 2 Emissions – The Electricity Balance
All purchased electricity is assumed to be produced by a coal fired power
plant, a similar C-credit is provided for power sales
Note: Conversion of in-
plant fuel gas to electric
power set to 30%
conversion efficiency

12. Scope 3 Emissions – Other Sources
Limestone calcination, pellet and oxygen production provided an identical
CO2 contribution for both cokemaking technologies

13. GHG Emissions are Similar
Portion of input carbon emitted by HRCP is higher but this is offset
by a lower C-Input due to better quality coke produced from the
same coal blend

14. The CO2 Emission Profile for Various
Integrated Steel Works Arrangements
A greenfield BF based steel works using best technology will be competitive on
CO2 with most coal-based alternative ironmaking technologies (AITs)
Scope 1 CO2 Emissions vs. Technology
4.0
3.5
3.0 Note: Conversion of in-plant
(CO2 tonnes/tonne HRC)
fuel gas to electric power set to
2.5 40% conversion efficiency for
CO2 Emitted
By-product Plants using CCPP
Technology
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Byproduct Byproduct Heat Recovery Heat Recovery 18 AITs
Non-Stamp Stamp Non-Stamp Stamp
WQ WQ WQ WQ

15. Cost Performance is Similar for ISWs using Various
Cokemaking Technologies
Rates of return are very close, heat recovery has a slightly lower IRR
due to a lower coal yield related to coal burnt in each oven
HRC OPEX for Different HRC CAPEX for Different
HRC %IRR for Different Cokemaking Technology
Cokemaking Technology Cokemaking Technology
Options
Options Options
BF + Byproduct+
Wet Quench
BF + Stamp
Charged
Byproduct+Wet
Quench
BF + Stamp
Charged + Heat
Recovery +Wet
Quench
BF + Heat
Recovery+Wet
Quench
-2% -1% 0% 1% 2% -2% -1% 0% 1% 2% -2% -1% 0% 1% 2%
Relative IRR (% at HRC) Relative OPEX (% at HRC) Relative CAPEX (% at HRC)

16. Theme 1 – Comments
GHG emissions are not strongly dependant on the ironmaking technology
selected when coal-based processes are considered
• GHG emissions are similar for a steel works using
either heat recovery and by-product cokemaking
processes
• Each cokemaking technology can offer the steel
works a strategy to lower the GHG emissions
– A heat recovery process can lower the steel work’s C-input
via increased coke quality and greater injected coal at the
blast furnace
– Using Combined Cycle Power Plant (CCPP) technology, a
by-products plant could improve the conversion of latent gas
energy into electric power and reduce power purchases
• Alternative coal-based ironmaking technologies
provide similar GHG emissions to BF based ISWs

17. Theme 1 – Comments
Finding a winning balance – a competition between coal blend price, fuel
gas costs and power/by-product sales
• With a heat recovery coke plant, the ISW needs a
cost competitive supplemental fuel gas for heating
purposes
• Using non-coking coal to reduce raw material costs
– More carbon is needed to make hot rolled coil due to
a loss of coke quality, as a result GHGs emitted
increases
• Power
– A high selling price of electrical power strongly drives
the benefits of a heat recovery based steel works. The
same is true for coke dry quenching
– Should green power be available to the ISW, the steel
works using a by-product coke plant would have a
lower C-footprint

18. Theme 2:
Regional Implications that Drive Cokemaking
Technology Selection

19. Operating Cost Drivers
Coal dominates the operating cost driver of coke produced
by either by-product and heat recovery processes
Cokemaking OPEX Breakdown
$350
$300 Power Credit
$250 COG Credit
OPEX ($/tonne coke)
$200 Byproducts
$150
Labor, Utilities
$100 and R&M
Materials
$50
Total
$0
($50)
($100)
Byproduct Byproduct Heat Recovery Heat Recovery
Non-Stamp Stamp Non-Stamp Stamp
WQ WQ WQ WQ

20. Regional Cost Drivers
Coal is internationally priced, power and by-product credits vary
region-to-region

21. Regional Coking Coal Blend Compositions
Germany aims to produce a high quality coke and operate the blast furnace at
<300 kg/t coke rate, reducing the total metallurgical coal required to produce
hot rolled coil. India and China focus on reducing the cost of the coal blend by
using leaner coals
Non- Stamp Charge Coking Coal Blend
VM % India
Brazil
26.2 USA
Germany
China
24.8
23.3
21.9
Moisture % Ash %
9.30 8.20 7.10 6.00 8.1 8.6 9.2
9.7
64.7
66.5
68.2
70.0
Fix C %

22. Stamped vs. Non-Stamped Blends
Introducing lean coals to the coking blend, increases volatile content
and reduces ash input, coke quality such as CSR decreases
Coking Coal Blends
VM %
27.0 India - NSC
India - SC
26.3
25.7
25.0
Moisture % Ash %
9.0 7.0 5.0 3.0 9.50 9.57 9.63
9.70
63.5
64.1
64.7
NSC = Non-Stamp Charged
65.3 SC = Stamp Charged
Fix C %

23. Regional Drivers
Coal, by-product and power sale credits can drive the technology
chosen to make blast furnace coke
• Availability of a low cost external fuel gas
– Where not available, by-product coke making will be the best choice
• Coal Costs
– Regions rich with coking coals and steel companies that control the
supply chain are less likely to change technology away from by-
product technology
– Regions with poor coking coal supplies and dependant on imports
have an imperative to use technology to introduce non-coking coals
to the coal blend
– Quality coals + quality coke can reduce total metallurgical coal
required by operating the blast furnace at <300 kg/t coke rate
• By-Product Credits and Power Sales
– Power sales have a large regional differences and can contribute to
technology selection
– In some regions, traditional chemical by-products can be a challenge
to sell

24. Theme 3:
Identifying Implementation Niches for the
Available Cokemaking Technologies

25. A Southeastern Brazilian Niche
Most of the Brazilian Steel Plants are located in the Southeast region in a
1000 km circle due to abundant iron ore resources.
USIMINAS
BELGO
Belo Horizonte
ACESITA Vitória
AÇOMINAS CST
BELGO
(JF)
CSN
Rio de Janeiro
São Paulo
Railways
COSIPA
Steelworks Plants
Ports

26. A Southeastern Brazilian Niche
Potential oversupply of traditional by-products with low or negative
prices gives Heat Recovery Cokemaking an opportunity to grow
•Five (5) new steel works are planned
•Major off shore oil field development will
increase natural gas availability
•Brazil needs electricity! USIMINAS
BELGO
Belo Horizonte
ACESITA Vitória
AÇOMINAS CST
BELGO
(JF)
CSN
Rio de Janeiro
São Paulo
Railways
COSIPA
Steelworks Plants
Ports

27. A European Niche
A regional Heat Recovery Coke Plant may be attractive in Europe
Location of ArcelorMittal’s blast furnaces
Key
9-12 Mt • Heat Recovery is favored by
6-9 Mt – High power price
3-6 Mt
0-3 Mt
– Strong environmental credentials
3 Number of blast furnaces
at the site • A regional heat recovery
coke plant able to serve
several steel mills may offer
2
2
a better solution to
3 2 2
2 4
3 3
rebuilding by-product plants
– Coastal location
2 4
2 – Polish coal field location
Source: Hatch Beddows 26

28. An Indian Niche
A combination of By-product and Heat Recovery Coke Plants may best
service India’s fast growing steel industry
• Integrated steel works need gas and
electricity
• Coals amenable to stamp charging are
Traditional Blast Furnace based available domestically and being
Steelmaking Region developed to reduce raw material costs
• By-products are hard to sell due to
logistical challenges creating a disposal
problem
• A two prong solution
– On-site by-product plant to meet the steel
works fuel gas needs
– A heat recovery plant to produce needed
power, either on-site or a regional facility

29. Closing Comments
• Greenhouse gas emissions from integrated steel works are
weakly dependant on coking technology.
• Stamp-charging and other methods to increase bulk
density will grow to reduce coal raw material costs by
using greater amounts of non-coking coals
• Niche opportunities that exploit power sales will foster
the implementation of heat recovery cokemaking
• The combination of by-product and heat recovery
technology can be used for various steps of a plant
implementation where low cost heating gases are not
available
• Heat recovery offers the possibility of regional coke
production supplying several steel plants that may be
preferred to on-site production

30. Cokemaking in an Integrated Steel Works
Technology, Location and Greenhouse Gases
Ian Cameron Sectors: Mining & Metals, Infrastructure and Energy
Senior Director – Iron & Steel
Offices Beijing, Belo Horizonte, Brisbane,
Phone +1-905-403-4052 Johannesburg, London, Mississauga,
icameron@hatch.ca Moscow, New Delhi, Oakville, Pittsburgh,
Santiago, São Paulo