NDEONGER fTT“‘“'“*6'~ 1}’ :7 6 4.’: ;2.,§§‘*~3 EL ,5 £4» R .13. .371 ‘yr’ ‘1“&!°#§:;hingt0r1 Urzéversiw 3; . V "_ E 5" ' ‘V 1? " 'f____\.z' ’ E _z:-‘! 5?’ __ 5 ._ W‘. ‘--— J.‘ '-___ _i:_ ’ 2 D »— : H ~. 0 70 C00 ( .7, --.. g J g . ‘“‘V<.r‘wIru::nu\ -—=.:.'3s:;:.ga.‘,.V“ $1.,“ ssue Bria bia CONGRSIONAL IIIHIII Universitf “MM souri Co is - lum 01 0-103860626 HIIW COAL SLURRY PIPELINES ISSUE BRIEF NUMBER IB7505O AUTHOR: Robert L. Bamberger Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE MAJOR ISSUES SYSTEM DATE ORIGINATED O6/l7/75 DATE UPDATED O1/14/82 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CALL 287-5700 0127 .4’ \) u \ /; \ . . . . _ .. \ . . . . r.. ...J. .\. ,.... q... n .. .. . L. . . .. » v r A . .~ u ?w .1. 1. . u 9 w. 91...... -- clan .- -a an... . CRS- 1 IB75050 UPDATE-0l/l4/82 ISSUE DEFINITION Plans have been announced by several companies for construction of coal slurry pipelines to transport coal from mine sites to power plants and other consumers. These projects have primarily contemplated development of the substantial reserves of coal in the Western United States, but the coal slurry technology -— the pumping of finely ground coal suspended in water through pipelines -- could conceivably become a means of coal transportation in any region. Legislation has been introduced in each of the last four Congresses to grant the requisite rights-of-way across federal lands, and also to establish the power of eminent domain to obtain rights-of-way across private lands. The granting of eminent domain was sought because numerous railroad lines and other private holdings would have to be crossed. As direct competitors in transporting coal, the railroads expressed strong opposition to pipeline projects and to the granting of eminent domain powers. Much of the support for coal slurry pipelines comes from coal buyers who fear exorbitant rail rates and have no current alternatives. Four of the proposed systems have been able to obtain rights of way without federal legislation. A second controversy involves the significant interbasin transfers of water that would be required to operate such pipelines. One major pipeline would require 15,000 to 20,000 acre feet of water per year. For the proposed pipelines in arid areas of the west, the large water requirements continue to be the cause of considerable concern. Coal slurry legislation was considered in both the 95th and 96th Congresses, and is under consideration again in the 97th Congress. On Dec. 8, l98l, the House Interior Committee, by a narrow vote, reported out legislation to extend Federal eminent domain authority to interstate coal slurry pipelines. Comparable legislation has been introduced in the Senate . BACKGROUND AND POLICY ANALYSIS The technical and economic feasibility of coal slurry pipelines has been demonstrated in two earlier projects. The first ran l08 miles from Cadiz, in southeastern Ohio, to Eastlake, in suburban Cleveland. This line, built in 1957, operated for six years and was then shut down because of substantially reduced railroad freight rates. Pipeline advocates credit the Ohio pipeline with stimulating the original development of unit trains. The 10-inch diameter pipe had a capacity of 1.3 million tons of coal per year. A second pipeline, currently in operation, runs 273 miles, from the Black Mesa mine on Navajo land in northeastern Arizona, to the Mojave Power Plant in extreme southern Nevada. The l8-inch diameter pipe has a capacity of 4.8 million tons of coal per year. ‘ In 1973, Energy Transportation Systems Inc. (ETSI) announced plans for a 1,030-mile coal slurry pipeline to run from the Gillette, Wyo., area to the Pine Bluff, Ark., area. Current plans would extend the line to Baton Rouge, Louisiana. ETSI, an affiliate of Bechtel Inc., Lehman Bros., Kansas—Nebraska Natural Gas company, and the Atlantic-Richfield Oil Company, is based in San Francisco, California. The proposed pipeline would have a 38-inch diameter with a capacity of approximately 25 million tons of coal per year. Arkansas Power and Light CRS- 2 IB7505O UPDATE-Ol/14/82 Co., a subsidiary of Middle South Utilities Inc., is the principal planned purchaser of the coal. Construction of the ETSI pipeline will begin in 1983 with operation anticipated by 1985. Another major pipeline is the Coalstream pipeline, a l500—mile pipeline that will carry slurry from Appalachia and the Illinois basin to Georgia and Florida, a system estimated to cost $3 billion and require six years to complete once undertaken. Numerous smaller—capacity coal slurry pipelines are also under consideration in other regions, including: (l) a l,lOO-mile, 7-millionétons-per—year line from northwest Colorado to the Houston, Texas, area —— the San Marco pipeline; (2) a l80-mile, lo-million-tons-per-year line from Utah to Nevada; (3) a 350-mile. 5-million—ton pipeline fromvwestern Virginia to Hampton Roads, owned by the Virginia Electric Power Company; (4) a l,lO0-mile, 25-million-tons-per-year pipeline from Wyoming to Oregon, known as the NICES system (Northwest Integrated Coal Energy System); (5) the Pacific Bulk Pipeline,» a 650-mile, lo-million-tons-per-year proposal; (6) a l,260-mile, 30-million-tons-per-year line from Montana to Texas owned by Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation; and M (7) the Powder River pipeline, a large-volume pipeline from Montana to utilities in the Midwest. The Slurry Transport Association, organized in Washington, D.C., represents this young industry. The technology of slurry pipelines consists of grinding the coal or other material to powder of sufficiently fine consistency to mix well with water, mixing the powder in approximately equal proportions with water, and pumping it through the pipeline. On the longer pipelines, supplemental pumping plants are generally required at various points. At the receiving end, after the coal is separated from the water it can be burned directly for thermal electric generation or transferred to other transportation modes. When clarified, the water can be used for cooling or other purposes. While proven in its current state, slurry pipeline technology is also being improved by research and development. Two of the more interesting qrecent concepts are (1) the 1186 Of carbon dioxide as a transportation medium, which could then be injected in oil fields, would separate more easily from the coal, and would not require scarce water for slurry transportation; and (2) a slurry developed by Babcock and Wilcox consisting of 71% high Btu bituminous coal, water, and some chemical additives, which can be burned without even removing the water under industrial boilers. Large deposits of coal are located within the Upper Missouri River Basin. Previously considered marginal because of their low grade and distance from markets, these deposits now offer good prospects for exploitation, because they are easily strippable and are generally considered to be low in sulfur. This is an arid region, however, with relatively limited water supplies. CRS- 3 IB7505O UPDATE-Ol/14/82 Agricultural and other interests in the region fear that their water supplies will be preempted by coal development. The Yellowstone sub-basin from which the ETSI pipeline would originate is the focus of both coal development proposals and concern over the use of limited water supplies. An aqueduct proposal and industrial water marketing contracts to serve coal development have been the subject of considerable controversy, and the contracts are the subject of litigation. A coal slurry pipeline requires« considerably less water per ton of coal than on-site processes, such as coal gasification or thermal electric generation. Concern has been expressed, however, by local interests about exporting the natural resources in this manner rather than fostering regional development at the source. Railroad movement of coal requires very little water, but the major railroads have also applied for water rights for coal development purposes. Particularly during droughts, such as the current one, are sensitivities high regarding water exports. Most attention to coal slurry pipeline proposals has focussed on Western coal resources. Eastern coal resources are also vast, however, and it is possible that the slurry technology would be equally applicable there. Possible advantages are better water availability, coal of higher energy content, and compatibility with coal washing projects. An advantage or disadvantage for such projects, depending on the conditions of Federal approval for them, is the relative weakness of the Eastern railroads with which they might compete. The granting of rights-of-way across public lands, which was sought during recent years for the ETSI project, would require an extension of rights-of-way provisions for oil and natural gas under the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920 (30 USC 185). The principal precedent for the granting of the power of eminent domain is that granted to natural gas pipelines by the 1947 amendment of the Natural Gas Act (15 USC 7l7f(h)). Oil pipelines were authorized to use the Federal power of eminent domain during world War II under the war powers of the Cole Act. Federal Power Commission licensees for hydroelectric projects can also use eminent domain. In general, the railroads have expressed vigorous opposition to the granting of eminent domain power to coal slurry pipelines. In 1974, coal accounted for approximately 25% of the tonnage and ll% of the revenues for Class I railroads on a national basis. Slurry pipelines would naturally be used for large-volume, point-to-point shipments, removing the potentially most profitable rail traffic. Passage of the staggers Act in the 96th Congress providing a much greater degree of rate—setting freedom to railroads is being cited by slurry pipeline advocates as removing any regulatory handicaps the railroads may have had; in fact, they assert that rail rates will now rise even faster in the absence of slurry pipeline competitors. The primary financial advantage Of slurry pipeline transportation 8.5 opposed to unit train transport is that pipelines are relatively inflation-proof.% By far the greatest expense is the initial construction, a capital investment with a certain fixed interest rate. Operation and maintenance would constitute a relatively minor expense. On the other hand, railroads, subject to uncertainties in the cost of labor and maintenance, must pass the uncertainty along to coal transporters. A study performed by ETSI projected that the pipelines rates would be lower initially than rail rates and that the gap would widen dramatically over time. Pipeline opponents point to the great need for water and uncertainties about environmental consequences in countering these claims. Because most slurry pipelines would serve electric utilities, their CRS- 4 IB7505O UPDATE-Ol/14/82 economic advantages may be reflected in electric rates. The National Economic Research Associates estimated a $4 - 8 billion saving during the decade of the l990s from one pipeline alone. A number of states have enacted eminent domain legislation which either includes slurry pipelines specifically or is general enough to be construed as including slurry pipelines. Oklahoma, Texas, and Louisiana enacted eminent domain statutes. some States‘ statutes also address the water requirements that might be necessary. In some states, eminent domain statutes have included state regulation of a slurry pipeline as a common carrier and a requirement that the public of that state benefit from the use -- a difficult obstacle in a state intended to be merely traversed. Those railroads with only an easement over the right-of-way may not have a sufficient interest in the land to prevent a pipeline from obtaining a right-of-way. Recent cases in state courts have upheld a right-of-way for a slurry pipeline project unless the railroad owned the land outright. In fact, ETSI has been able to obtain a right-of-way, although perhaps not the most direct right-of-way, by means of such actions, negotiation, and state laws, and plans to begin construction despite the lack of Federal eminent domain legislation. The partners in ETSI announced Mar. 31, 1981, that they were proceeding to a "definitive phase" of engineering work, with a goal of starting construction in early 1983. Pipeline opponents have viewed congressional action to facilitate construction of coal slurry pipelines as being at cross purposes with congressional efforts to improve rail systems. Although the western railroads that would be moving coal for the ’Northern Great Plains Region are financially healthier than most, they are basing much of their growth on the expected requirements for moving coal. They see the kind of movements that would be feasible for slurry pipelines as the most desirable of all. They point to their common carrier obligations, obligations to support non—remunerative lines by drawing on revenues from their remunerative lines, and lower overall rates of return than would be earned by slurry pipeline companies as reasons why slurry pipelines would have an unfair advantage if permitted. The railroads cite as an advantage the fact that they would be responsible for much more employment along the shipment route. They also argue that the relative inflexibility of slurry pipelines in taking on additional traffic or distributing the product to more than one user at the end of the tpipeline should weigh in favor of railroads. ' There are some who have suggested that coal shippers are supporting coal slurry pipelines in order to obtain a club with which to force railroad rates lower. These suppliers allegedly believe that rail rates for coal are now monopoly rates because there is no transportation alternative, and that as soon as coal slurry pipelines are imminent, rail rates will be lowered to prevent their construction. The proposed ETSI pipeline would use 15,000 to 20,000 acre-feet per year of groundwater from a large aquifer known as the Madison Formation. A 70-mile—long pipeline would be needed to transport the water from the well ‘field t0 the slurry preparation facility. The Northern Great Plains Resource Program has postulated that there iS potential for development Of large CRS- 5 IB7505O UPDATE-Ol/14/82 groundwater supplies for industry from the Madison, and that while the water is of sufficient quality for industrial use, it would be marginal to unsatisfactory for irrigation, or other uses that require good quality water. There is considerable disagreement on this conclusion, however. The sodium content was considered too high for irrigation, and, except for near the Black Hills, the water could not meet public health standards. Several Wyoming communities do, however, use the aquifer for municipal supply. Also, several South Dakota communities use the groundwater from the Madison Formation and are concerned that energy development in Wyoming could be detrimental to their water supply. South Dakota has threatened to sue Wyoming if withdrawals there lower South Dakota water levels. A U.S. Geological Survey water expert has suggested that the Madison formation appears to be able to recharge itself at a rate of about lO0,000 acre feet per year. On Feb. 6, 1979, a committee of the Wyoming legislature rejected an attempt to repeal the water rights granted the ETSI line. A provision of past proposals was the so-called commodities clause, which would have prohibited coal pipelines from carrying coal in which they have an interest, or which they own or will use. Atlantic Richfield, for instance, is a major partner in ETSI and owns large coal mines in the area where ETSI would originate. Railroads are under a similar injunction but have found ways of avoiding its impact by leasing their coal and using corporate restructuring. A major study of the problems and prospects of coal slurry pipelines was ordered by the 94th Congress from the Office of Technology Assessment. The OTA study incorporated separate analyses of four facets of the situation: the demand for coal from various producing regions, rail and pipeline cost estimates and market scenarios, the comparative environmental impacts of rail versus pipeline, and the legal and regulatory framework surrounding the controversy. Since its public release, both sides of the controversy have cited it to support parts of their arguments. It concluded that over some routes coal slurry pipelines would have an economic advantage, but does not indicate an overwhelming public imperative that this new form of coal transportation be built. The railroads have suggested that the cost to the nation of having them further injured by the competition is much greater than the marginal benefit of lower cost over a few routes. Exports of steam coal from the U.S. are currently gathering interest as a means of offsetting industrial oil use in Europe and Japan, and helping with the U.s. balance of payments problems. The slurry pipeline technology could be used for direct loading of coal vessels, reducing port bottlenecks and permitting deepwater vessels to carry coal from offshore terminals. A number of such proposals are under consideration. The 95th Congress considered slurry pipelines right-of-way legislation. It was favorably reported by both the House Interior and House Public Works committees, but received a negative report from the House Commerce Committee. The bill was defeated in the House, 246-161, on July 19, l978. In the 96th Congress, H.R. 4370, The "Coal Pipeline Act of 1979," underwent hearings before the House Interior Committee in July, with The National Coal Association providing strong support, and Senator Bumpers introduced legislation in the Senate. H.R. 4370 was reported favorably by the House Interior Committee on Dec. 7, 1979. Called the "Coal Pipeline Act of 1979," the bill placed the authority to grant rights-of-way with the Secretary of the Interior over CRS- 5 ~ IB7505O UPDATE-Ol/14/82 Federal and private lands. The bill was subsequently referred to the House Public Works Committee. The Subcommittee on Surface Transportation reported a revised version to the full Committee by voice vote. In the press of other energy business, however, the slurry proposals did not make their way to either floor for a vote. The 97th Congress: The Coal Pipeline Act of 1981 Legislation to extend eminent domain authority to coal slurry pipelines is again a legislative issue in the 97th Congress. The Coal Pipeline Act of 1981 (H.R. 4230) was reported from the House Interior Committee on December 8 by a narrow vote of 21-20. The bill, introduced in July 1981, would provide that the Interstate Commerce Commission could, upon review, issue a certificate of "public convenience and necessity to construct, operate, or maintain a coal pipeline." Certificate holders could, by exercise of the power of eminent domain, acquire rights-of-way through private lands. ‘The Administration was slow in declaring its position on the legislation. Energy Secretary Edwards had expressed support.for the bill, writing in »an October letter to one White House policy official that "the situation calls, for federal legislation so that our_ administration can be perceived gas working to strengthen this nation's energy base while reducing its costs to consumers." Some observors thought Administration opposition or silence on the issue would be devastating to pipeline projects. On Nov. 17, 1981, Interior Secretary Watt, testifying before the House Interior Committee, conveyed the Administration's opposition to the proposed bill. Watt described the Administration's perception that the bill would be another instance in which decision-making most appropriately vested with the States is arrogated to the Federal Government. In a letter accompanying Watt's statement, President Reagan expressed This belief that it was inappropriate for the railroads to "thwart projects beneficial" to the nation for "their own parochial purposes," but that .the Administration would not support eminent domain legislation to override difficulties in acquiring rights-of-way. "Our commitment to the vitality of state governments," Reagan wrote, "should not be abandoned simply because it may at times be inconvenient." The President directed that the appropriate Federal departments "work with states and private parties to ensure that coal slurry pipelines are not prevented from competing by unjustified impediments to their ability to negotiate for rights-of-way." Secretary Watt was unable to explain to the committee on November 17 what steps might be undertaken :to carry out the President's directive. Opposition to the bill has traced familiar arguments of the past. ;The railroads have maintained their opposition, arguing that slurry pipelines will deprive the railroads of large volume users and thereby jeopardize ‘the health of the nation's railroad system. Should the entire system suffer, the railroads raise the possibility that they might not be able to provide service to users that cannot be served by slurry pipelines. The other chief opposition to the granting of eminent domain for slurry pipelines comes from concern over water requirements of slurry rights. CThe bill provides that water within any State may not be appropriated except pursuant t0 State "substantive and procedural" law, and iI'1Cl1Jd€S language tO~ the effect that the bill does not alter State laws and regulations governing water use. A memorandum prepared by committee staff in early December CRS- 7 IB7505O UPDATE-Ol/l4/82 concluded that the bill afforded full protection of States’ rights on the allocation of water resources. Despite Administration opposition, the bill survived, albeit by one vote (21-20), with 11 Democrats and 10 Republicans voting favorably. On the same day that Interior reported favorably on H.R. 4230, the House Subcommittee on Surface Transportation was holding hearings on the bill. In the Senate, a comparable bill, S. 1844, was introduced Nov. ~12, 1981 by Sen. Johnston (D—La.). The Senate bill is essentially identical to the House legislation with the exception that the Senate bill would vest the certifying authority for the pipelines with the Department of Energy rather than the Interstate Commerce Commission. LEGISLATION H.R. 4230 (Udall et al.) Coal Pipeline Act of 1981. Amends the Interstate Commerce Act to grant the power of eminent domain to certain coal pipeline carriers to which certificates of public convenience are issued. Introduced July 22, 1981 and referred to more than one committee. Reported from the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs (to be published). 8. 1844 (Johnston) Similar to H.R. 4230. Introduced Nov. 12, 1981; referred to Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. S. 305 (Pressler) Would prohibit the U.S., and any grantee acquiring rights-of-way across Federal land for energy projects, from using water from any State in an energy project unless the water is obtained pursuant to State law. HEARINGS U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Coal Pipeline Act of 1977. Hearings, 95th Congress, lst session. Apr. 19, 25 and 26, 1977. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1977. 451 p. U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Coal slurry pipeline legislation. Hearings, 94th Congress, lst session. Mar. 19; Apr. 30; May 5, 7, 16; June 10; July 25; Nov. 7, 14; Dec. 5, 1975. washingtion, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1975. i253 p. U.S. congress. House. committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Subcommittee on Transportation and Commerce. Coal slurry pipelines. Hearing on H.R. 6879. Aug. 28, 1980. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. 185 p. "Serial no. 96-205" U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Science and Technology. Oversight hearings-—coa1 slurry pipeline research and.development. Hearings, 94th Congress, lst session. Jan. 29, 1976. U.S. REPORTS CRS- 8 IB7505O UPDATE-O1/14/82 Coal slurry Apr. 18, Govt. Print. Committee on Commerce. 87th Congress, 2d session. 1962. Washington, U.S. Senate. Hearings, 4, and 21, 246 p. Congress. pipelines. May 1, 2, 3, Off., 1962. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Hearings, 93d Congress, 2d session, on Amendment No. 1175 to S. 2652 to facilitate the construction of coal slurry pipelines. June 11, 1974. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1974. 242 p. Congress. Senate. Coal slurry pipelines. Organizational Conflict of interest in government contracting. Hearings, 94th Congress, 1st session. Nov. 17, 21; Dec. 5, 1975. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1976. 954 p. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs Greater coal utilization. Joint on S. 1777. June 10-12, Govt. Print. 0ff., Congress. Senate. and Committee on Public Works. hearings, 94th Congress, lst session, 16, 23, 1975. 3 vol. Washington, U.S. 1975. 2469 p. AND CONGRESSIONAL DOCUMENTS House. Committee on Interior and Insular Report to accompany H.R. 4370. House. Report Part I. Committee on Public Works. .Part II. Congress. Affairs. no. 96-692, House. Committee on Interstate and Foreign Subcommittee on Transportation and Commerce. 1609, The Coal Congress. Commerce. Report on coal slurry pipelines and H.R. Pipeline Act of 1978. June 1978. At head of title: 95th Congress, print no. 95-96. 2d session. Committee Report to Part II. Committee on Public Works. House. Report no. 95-924, House. 1609. Congress. accompany H.R. CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS 12/08/81 ll/l7 03/07 12/07 The House Interior Committee reported out H.R. 4230, the Coal Pipeline Act of 1981, by a vote of 21-20. The Subcommittee on Surface Transportation held hearings on H.R. 4230. 3 Secretary of the Interior Watt communicated to the House Interior Committee President Reagan's decision not to support eminent domain legislation for coal slurry pipelines. /81 The Subcommittee on Surface Transportation of the House Public Works Committee reported H.R. 4370 to the full Committee. /80 /79 The House Interior Committee reported H.R. 4370 by CRS- 9 IB7505O UPDATE-Ol/14/82 a vote of 24-12. O6/O4/79 —- Secretary of Energy James Schlesinger urged that priority be given to passage of H.R. 4370, The Coal Pipeline Act of l979. O4/O6/79 -- President Carter mentioned support for slurry pipeline legislation in nationally televised energy message. O2/O6/79 -- Committee of Wyoming legislature reported attempt to deny water use permit to ETSI. ll/O9/78 -- I.C.C. permitted railroad contract rates on case—by-case basis. 09/29/77 —— The White House sent a letter from the Office of Management and Budget in support of H.R. l609. 06/27/77 -- House Interior Committee Subcommittees on Public Lands and on Mines and Mining voted 13-12 to put off consideration of coal slurry pipeline bill for 6 months in anticipation of a report from.the Office of Technology Assessment. 10/00/75 —— The Washington Star issued a series of reports criticizing the Bechtel study, Coal-Source to Use, which was prepared under a government contract initiated by Bechtel with the contractors supposedly being unaware that Bechtel was in the coal slurry business. ADDITIONAL REFERENCE SOURCES Appalachian Regional Commission. Applicability of coal slurry pipelines to the Applachian region. Prepared under contract by Mathtech, Inc., Princeton, New Jersey. l665 Connecticut Avenue, NW. Washington, D.C. 20235. Battelle Memorial Institute. Proceedings of the International Technical Conference on solid liquid slurry transportation held on Feb. 3, 1976, at Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, Ohio; sponsored by the U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration, the Slurry Transport Association and Battelle Memorial Institute. 220 p. Bechtel Corporation. Clean coal energy: source to use economics. Final report to ERDA, Jan. 1976. Federal Energy Administration. Analysis of requirements and constraints on requirements and constraints on the transport of energy materials, project independence blueprint final task force report. 2 vol. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Nov. 1974. Hudson Institute, Research analysis of factors affecting transportation of coal by rail and slurry pipeline. 2»V. ‘ Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y., Hudson Institute. April 1976. Manalytics, IIIC. fOI‘ Electric POWGI‘ Research. Coal transportation National Economic Research Associates. Richardson, Rieber, Stein U.S. cns-10 IB7505O UPDATE-Ol/14/82 capability of the existing rail and barge network, 1985 and beyond. Pipeline transportation an assessment of its energy February of coal to Georgia and Florida: and economic benefits in light of national policy. 1980. issues and problems. 1979: 22-30. Lemont K. Public Utilities Fortnightly. Coal slurry pipelines: Augo 16! Michael, Shao Lee Soo, and James economic and technological analysis Stukel. The coal future: of initiatives and innovations to secure fuel supply independence. Urbana, Il1., Center for Advanced Computation, University of Illinois, May 1975- 214 p. Reproduced in Greater Coal Utilization Hearings CAC document no. 190 route specific cost comparisons: unit trains, coal slurry pipelines and extra high voltage transmission. Urbana, Il1., Center for Advanced Computation, University of Illinois. an economic and barge and coal Center 8%vo1umes. Comparative coal transportation costs: engineering analysis of truck, belt, rail, slurry and pneumatic pipelines. Urbana, Illinois. for Advance Computation. University of Illinois. V. 3 -- Coal Slurry Pipelines. August 1977. dorff, G.N. Adequate slurry pipeline design technology exists. Oil and gas journal, Dec. 22, 1980: 76-80. A technology January 1978. Office of Technology Assessment. Washington, 1980. Congress. assessment of coal slurry pipelines. Summary update prepared in September, Western coal transportation: Springfield, Va., National Department of Transportation. unit trains or slurry pipelines. Technical Information Service. General Accounting Office. Coal slurry pipelines: progress and problems for new ones. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. lJBR£fi?f or WASHSN Umnmmswv stLQgw»mo.