^Feldspar and Quartz from the Dunes ~*of Kankakee, Illinois: A Preliminary Feasibility Study Subhash B. Bhagwat, Randall E. Hughes, John M. Masters, and Philip J. DeMaris Illinois Minerals 122 2001 George H. Ryan, Governor Department of Natural Resources Brent Manning, Director ILLINOIS STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY William W. Shilts, Chief Q O - w LIBRARY. Feldspar and Quartz from the Dunes of Kankakee, Illinois: A Preliminary Feasibility Study Subhash B. Bhagwat, Randall E. Hughes, John M. Masters, and Philip J. DeMaris Illinois Minerals 122 2001 George H. Ryan, Governor Department of Natural Resources Brent Manning, Director ILLINOIS STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY William W.Shilts, Chief 615 E. Peabody Drive Champaign, Illinois 61820-6964 Equal opportunity to participate in programs of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) and those funded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other agencies is available to all individuals regardless of race, sex, national origin, disability, age, religion or other non-merit factors. If you believe you have been discriminated against, contact the funding source's civil rights office and/or the Equal Employment Opportunity Officer, IDNR, 524 S. Second, Springfield, Illinois 62701-1787; 217/785- 0067;TTY217/782-9175. This information may be provided in an alternative format if required. Contact the DNR Clearinghouse at 217/782-7498 for assistance. Editorial Board Jonathan H. Goodwin, Chair Michael L. Barnhardt David R. Larson B. Brandon Curry John H. McBride Anne L. Erdmann Donald G. Mikulic William R. Roy Printed by the authority of the State of Illinois 0.6M -11/01 © Printed on recycled and recyclable paper stock. Foreword Crushed stone and sand and gravel have fundamental importance for the construction industries of Illinois. However, other industrial minerals, such as silica sand, feldspar, tripoli, and clays, play important roles in the state's economy because they are used in industrial processes of high economic value or processed into higher value products. Such minerals are used in making glass, ceramics, pottery, and brick and serve as fillers in paints, detergents, paper, and chemicals. Most industrial minerals remain as local commodities because they are usually consumed near their origin. In several Illinois counties, they are an important source of employment, tax revenues, and economic stability. In 1997, the staff of the Industrial Minerals and Resource Economics Section of the Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS) responded to a request from the Kankakee County Economic Development Council to investigate the economic feasibility of extracting feldspar, glass sand, and foundry sand from dune deposits in the underdeveloped southeastern part of Kankakee County. A team of ISGS geologists had studied the dunes there in 1974 and found deposits of potential economic interest. This present study investigated whether extraction of one or more products would be economically feasible. The study confirms the occurrence of feldspar and silica (quartz) sand in amounts that would be extracted at a significantly lower cost than the current market prices for the commodities. The markets for feldspar in particular should be studied further because feldspar is a vital ingredient in the manufacture of glass and ceramics. Although silica sand is abundantly available in the upper midwestern United States, the closest feldspar sources are in North Carolina and Ontario, Canada. Several million dollars in transportation costs could be saved annually if feldspar were produced locally. This study suggests that local production of feldspar and silica sand would generate jobs in the area southeast of Kankakee that suffers from very high unemployment. A potential for more new jobs, beyond those that would result from the mining and processing alone, exists if user industries could be attracted to the area. William W. Shilts, Chief Illinois State Geological Survey Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2012 with funding from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign http://archive.org/details/feldsparquartzfr122bhag Contents Foreword Executive Summary Introduction Sampling and Analysis in 1997 Geologic Origin Mineral Content Market Indicators for Product Choice Silica (Quartz) Sand Feldspar Suggested Processing of Kankakee Dune Sand Preliminary Cost Estimates Preliminary Economic Feasibility Results Discussion Limitations Environmental and Land Use Impacts Future Work References APPENDICES A Mineralogic Analysis B Plant Investments and Hourly Costs for Mining Dune Sands C Net Present Value Analyses in 1 2 2 2 2 5 5 5 9 11 11 11 12 12 16 20 FIGURES 1 Illinois townships reporting sands containing more than 20% feldspar 2 Locations of samples 3 Flow diagram I: Amber glass sand 4 Flow diagram II: Foundry sand and amber glass sand 5 Flow diagram III: Feldspar and amber glass sand 6 Flow diagram IV: Feldspar TABLES 1 Nonclay mineral content calculated from XRF chemical analyses 2 Summary of economic results detailed in appendix C 3 Basic assumptions for costs and operating parameters Al Average mineral composition determined by XRD analysis and ratios of K-spar and Na-plag A2 Acetic acid-extractable content as determined by ICP chemical analyses and percentages of calcite and dolomite and their sums, calculated from ICP results. A3 Chemical content by XRF chemical analyses A4 Average mineral content for dune sands in three borings, calculated from XRF and XRD analyses A5 Average mineral content for lacustrine sediments in three borings, calculated from XRF and XRD analyses A6 Average chemical oxide content for dune sands in three borings, determined by XRF analyses A7 Average chemical oxide and mineralogical composition for dune sands from 13 samples from Ehrlinger and Masters (1974) A8 Particle size obtained by wet screening of composite samples of dune sands from boreholes 1 , 3, and 5 3 4 7 7 8 9 5 10 10 13 14 14 15 15 15 15 15 Bl Plant investments for mining and processing dune sands near Kankakee, Illinois 16 B2 Hourly costs for mining and processing dune sands near Kankakee, Illinois 18 CI Break-even price estimates using the net present value method for the procedure described in flow diagram I 20 C2 Break-even price estimates using the net present value method for the procedure described in flow diagram II 20 C3 Break-even price estimates using the net present value method for the procedure described in flow diagram III (Scenario A) 22 C4 Break-even price estimates using the net present value method for the procedure described in flow diagram III (Scenario B) 22 C5 Break-even price estimates using the net present value method for the procedure described in flow diagram III (Scenario C) 24 C6 Break-even price estimates using the net present value method for the procedure described in flow diagram IV (Scenario A) 24 C7 Break-even price estimates using the net present value method for the procedure described in flow diagram IV (Scenario B) 26 C8 Break-even price estimates using the net present value method for the procedure described in flow diagram IV (Scenario C) 26 C9 Break-even price estimates using the net present value method for the procedure described in flow diagram IV (Scenario D) 28 CIO Break-even price estimates using the net present value method for the procedure described in flow diagram III (HCUS) 28 Executive Summary This study was undertaken upon a re- quest from the Kankakee County Eco- nomic Development Council (1) to verify the mineralogical analyses of the dune sands conducted by ISGS geologists in 1974 near Kankakee, and (2) to conduct a preliminary economic analysis of the feasibility of extracting and marketing feldspar, foundry sand (quartz [or silica] sand), and amber glass sand (feldspar and quartz sand) from the dunes. On the basis of the recommendations of this study, Kankakee County may decide whether to invest in more detailed character- ization, processing, and market stud- ies as well as a more comprehensive economic feasibility assessment. Samples were collected from five boreholes drilled in fall 1997. Twenty- one subsamples from three boreholes were analyzed for their chemical and mineralogical contents and were compared with the results of the 1974 study. The results confirmed that the dune sands contain about 74% quartz (silica sand) , 2 1 % feldspar, and 5% other minerals; these percentages are in the same range as those reported in the 1974 study. The only difference between the two studies consists in the types of mineral grains reported. For example, the 1974 study identified both feldspathic rock materials and grains containing both feldspar and quartz; the present study did not separately identify these multi-min- eral intergrowths. The samples in the 1974 study were primarily taken from road cuts, whereas the new samples came from boreholes drilled from the tops of the dunes or as near to the tops as possible. The different sample locations did not reveal differences in the mineral composition of the sand; however, grain size of the sand may be different at different positions on the dunes. The feldspar content of the sands is of more economic impor- tance than the quartz (silica) sand content because of the higher market price of feldspar and a lack of feldspar production in the midwestem United States. Although the sands contain 17% to 21% feldspar, extraction ineffi- ciencies had to be considered. There- fore, we have provided two economic scenarios for the sand processing plant, one assuming a feldspar yield of 17% and the other a yield of 15%. In their 1974 study, Ehrlinger and Masters conducted tests that indi- cated feldspar could be separated from quartz sand using the flotation technique. Laboratory tests indi- cated that classification of the dune sand into different size fractions with or without separation of feld- spar could permit its use as foundry sand and also produce a mix of quartz sand and feldspar that could be used in the manufacture of am- ber glass and ceramic products. This study tested process flow de- signs to produce four product alter- natives: (I) amber glass sand, (II) foundry sand and amber glass sand, (III) feldspar and amber glass sand, and (IV) feldspar alone. The amber glass sand in the first two alterna- tives contains feldspar in the same percentages as in the original sand; in the third and fourth alternatives, the feldspar has been separated. In the third alternative, feldspar must be added back for glass making, or the sand fraction with low- feldspar content can be marketed as foundry sand. Flow diagram IV as- sumes that only the feldspar is mar- ketable and that the remaining ma- terial can be returned to the mine or sold as common construction sand. The proposed processing plant was designed for an annual capacity of 1 12,000 tons raw input or 100,000 tons of production. The basic oper- ating conditions assumed two shifts per day and 200 working days per year. Commercially available data were used to estimate the initial mining and processing plant invest- ments and the operating and main- tenance costs. Initial depreciable in- vestments including the equipment, transport and installation, and aux- iliaries ranged from $ 1 .67 million to $2.41 million; the operating and maintenance costs ranged from $85 to $ 1 1 1 per hour of operation. A discount rate of 18% was used in the calculation of break-even prod- uct prices. The feasibility estimates indicate that the undertaking can be economically viable under certain conditions. Profitability increases signifi- cantly if the plant is assumed to be operable for three shifts per day and 250 days per year, as recommended by experienced operators. Markets for silica (quartz) sand and feld- spar in the Upper Midwest differ signifi- candy from one another. Illinois ranks first among the states producing silica sand; Illinois' annual production is 5 mil- lion tons (of the U.S. total of about 3 1 million tons). Illinois, Wisconsin, Michi- gan, and Ohio account for 36% of the national production. Silica sand in the Upper Midwest is a low-cost material, about $9.50 per ton for glass making and $11 per ton as foundry sand. That price rapidly increases with the distance the sand is transported. Therefore, many small producers are scattered through- out the country, relatively close to con- sumers. The 10 largest companies in the United States own 58 operations and produce 71% of the sand. The concen- tration of foundry sand production in the Midwest is especially high (74% of the U.S. total) because of the availability of inexpensively mined, high-quality sand in the region. Nationally, about 37% of the silica sand is utilized by the glass industry. Among non-glass uses, foundry users are the dominant market. For small producers, such as the proposed Kankakee under- taking, other uses for silica sand should be carefully studied. Some of these uses are for specialty glasses, abrasives, hy- draulic fracturing of rocks in crude oil production, fiberglass, filtration, chemi- cals, and ceramic materials. New sand producers in the Midwest face a market that is highly competitive in both quality and price. The search for a market niche should be based on a combination of product specialty and delivered price in the nearby industrial areas of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Glass production from silica sand requires the addition of feldspar or nepheline syenite as a source of alumina. Because the dunes of Kankakee County contain feld - spar, they offer an advantage over con- ventional silica sand sources, especially in the amber glass market. The market prospects for feldspar are better than those for glass making or foundry sand, primarily because most U.S. feldspar (about 1 million tons per inois State Geological Survey linois Minerals 122 year) is produced in states distant from the midwestern industrial areas, and feldspar's mineral substitute, nepheline syenite, is imported (about 275,000 tons a year) from Ontario, Canada. North Carolina accounts for 54% of the total U.S. feldspar production. Feldspar is also produced in California, Virginia, Georgia, Idaho, and South Dakota. About 70% of U.S. feldspar production is used by the glass-making industry. The other 30% is consumed for ce- ramic products, pottery, and tiles, among many other uses. Available in- formation indicates that at least 50,000 tons of feldspar are consumed in Illi- nois and Indiana each year, all of which is imported from North Carolina and Canada Feldspar production in Kankakee County would be a source close to these industrial markets. Introduction The ISGS first studied the Kankakee dune sands in 1942 (Willman 1942). Further studies were performed by Hunter (1965), Ehrlinger et al. (1969), Ehrlinger and Jackman (1970), and Ehrlinger and Masters (1974). The last ISGS publication in 1974 dealt with mineralogical, chemical, and particle size distribution analyses of the Kankakee dune sands that were impor- tant to understand how the sand could be used for saleable products. In 1997, the Kankakee County Economic Devel- opment Council requested help from the ISGS in determining the economic feasibility of mining and processing the Kankakee sands. The objective was to assess whether the council or a private concern would be justified in investing in further detailed geological, engineer- ing, economic, and market studies. During fall 1997, ISGS geologists and technicians drilled five boreholes at se- lected sites and sampled the sand from three of the holes for analysis. The new samples and analyses were (1) to con- firm the results of the 1974 study, (2) to take into account advances in analyti- cal as well as minerals processing tech- nology, (3) to propose one or more al- ternative flow diagrams for sand pro- cessing, and (4) to conduct a prelimi- nary economic feasibility analysis to determine the profitability potential of a future venture. This document re- ports the preliminary results of the samples analyzed for this study, sum- marizes the mineralogical and size dis- tribution results from the 1974 study, and presents the projected economic feasibility of producing four sand product combinations. Sampling and Analysis in 1997 Figure 1 shows the distribution of dune fields in Illinois that contain more than 20% feldspar. The large dune field in southeastern Kankakee County is one of the more promising deposits for commercial feldspar production in Illi- nois because of its size and proximity to the industrial complex of northeast- ern Illinois, northwestern Indiana, southwestern Michigan, and southeast- ern Wisconsin. The dune field is a prominent feature on the St. Anne and Leesville 7.5-minute topographic Quadrangles. Figure 2 shows the configuration of part of the dune field on the Momence 15-minute Quadrangle. The K numbers mark the locations of channel samples taken from road cuts and blowouts for the feldspar study reported by Ehrlinger and Masters (1974). Loca- tions B-l, B-3, and B-5 are the collec- tion sites for the continuous core holes sampled and analyzed for this study. The locations were chosen to position the rig as high as possible on a dune. The cores were taken through the dune sand into underlying bedded fluvial- lacustrine pebbly sands and silts. Cor- ing was terminated when material be- gan to flow into the drill hole. In all five holes, the water table was encountered near the base of the dune sand, which is also about where the sand's carbon- ate contents increase and its color be- comes more gray than brown. The new samples add to the knowledge of the deposits because they were taken from boreholes drilled through the dunes, whereas the 1974 samples were taken from road cuts on the edges of the dunes. Together, the samples of both studies present a reasonably complete picture of the material. Geologic Origin The origin of the dune field can be traced to the latter part of the most re- cent ice age, about 13,000 to 15,000 years ago, when the outer edge of the Lake Michigan lobe of glacial ice was just north of the Kankakee River valley (Ehrlinger and Masters 1974). Enor- mous amounts of sediment-laden meltwater were released to the valley at that time, and floods spread over all but the highest land in the area. When the glacier and the floods finally re- ceded, large areas of fine-grained sedi- ment were exposed to wind erosion, resulting in the migration of the dune field to roughly its present position. However, subsequent events, such as droughts and fires, have probably caused smaller migrations to occur, just as blowouts and sand migration occur today wherever the vegetation cover on a dune is broken. Mineral Content The Kankakee dune sands are com- posed primarily of silica (quartz) , pla- gioclase feldspars (albite [Na-plag] and anorthite [Ca-plag]), K-feldspar, illite and mica, chlorite, hornblende, pyrite and marcasite, and, in some samples, trace amounts of calcite and dolomite. The mineralogical content of the sand was determined by x-ray fluorescence (XRF) chemical analysis and x-ray dif- fraction (XRD) mineralogical analysis. XRF chemical analysis was preferred for the calculation of the quartz and feldspar contents because XRF is more accurate than XRD. Table 1 presents the summary of min- eral content analysis of the Kankakee dune sands (for details of the mineral- ogical analysis see appendix A). Table 1 contains three data sets. The first two linois Minerals 122 linois State Geological Survey Figure 1 Illinois townships reporting sands containing more than 20% feldspar (source) inois State Geological Survey linois Minerals 122 Figure 2 Locations of samples. B-1 to B-5 are drill holes for this study. K-8 to K-14 are nearby sample sites used in the study of Ehrlinger and Masters (1974). sets of three samples each are from the borings, and the last set of one sample is from the Ehrlinger and Masters (1974) study, re-analyzed using XRF. The first set of samples consisted of material screened to the size <1 mm to >63 urn. The second set of data con- sists of unscreened bulk samples. The results of the last sample (Ehrlinger and Masters 1974) differ from the newer samples because the older sample was taken at a road cut whereas the newer ones were from boreholes on top the dunes. Weathering at the road cuts affects the mineral content. The numbers in the "percent feldspar" column of table 1 are the sums of the three preceding columns. Table 1 also presents, in the last three columns, the ratios of each type of feldspar in the total feldspar content. These ratios are significant in certain applications and uses of feldspar. The average quartz content of the Kankakee dune sands is 73.5% ± 1.5% and the average feldspar content is 20.6% ± 1.6%. The economic analysis considers both the data of Ehrlinger and Masters (1974) (17% feldspar con- tent) and the results from this study (21% feldspar content) for the sands; appropriate adjustments in yield have been made to account for inefficien- cies of separation. All available information indicates that three products are possible from these sands: (1) a relatively fine-grained foundry sand, (2) an amber glass sand containing feldspar, or (3) a flotation product of nearly pure feldspar con- taining approximately 18% Al 2 3 and a quartz by-product with traces of re- maining feldspar. linois Minerals 122 linois State Geological Survey Table 1 Nonclay mineral content calculated (as percentages) from XRF chemical analyses (see table A7). K-spar Na-plag Ca-plag Sample K-spar Na-plag Ca-plag Feldspar 12 Quartz 1 ratio 3 ratio 4 ratio 5 3706A 6 9.6 7.4 6.5 24 72 0.41 0.53 0.47 3706B 6 10 6.3 3.9 21 76 0.51 0.62 0.38 3706C 6 11 7.1 4.9 23 73 0.47 0.59 0.41 Mean 6 10 6.9 5.1 22 74 0.46 0.58 0.42 Std dev 6 0.48 0.46 1.1 1.3 1.7 0.04 0.04 0.04 3706A 7 7.0 6.8 5.0 19 74 0.37 0.58 0.42 3706B 7 9.5 6.5 4.1 20 75 0.47 0.61 0.39 3706C 7 9.9 7.4 5.5 23 71 0.44 0.57 0.43 Mean 7 8.8 6.9 4.9 21 73 0.43 0.59 0.41 Std dev 7 1.3 0.36 0.57 1.6 1.5 0.04 0.02 0.02 3669A 8 9.2 7.8 18 35 62 0.27 0.31 0.69 1 Feldspar and quartz percentages are calculated by subtracting the chemical oxides in clay minerals, hornblende, and pyrite/marcasite (as calculated from XRD data) from the bulk chemical analyses. 2 Sum of %K-spar, %Na-plag, and %Ca-plag. 3 Ratio of %K-spar to K-spar + plagioclase feldspars. 4 Ratio of %Na-plag to %Na-plag + %Ca-plag. s Ratio of %Ca-plag to %Na-plag + %Ca-plag. 6 Samples screened <1 mm >65 /^m. 7 Bulk samples. 8 Ratios for sample 3669A are in error because of calcite and dolomite in the sample. Market Indicators for Product Choice Silica (Quartz) Sand Illinois ranks first among the states in production of silica (quartz) sand. About 31 million tons of silica sand are produced in the United States, of which 5 million tons are produced in Illinois. Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio together account for 36% of the na- tional production. Another 28% is pro- duced in California, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Texas. Al- though silica sand is produced in al- most all of the states, the top five states account for 44% of production. The states in the Upper Midwest have large production, which is why silica sand in this region is a low-priced material (about $9.50 per ton for glass making and $ 1 1 per ton as foundry sand) . That price rapidly increases with the dis- tance the sand is transported. There- fore, many small producers are scat- tered throughout the country relatively close to their customers. The 10 largest companies in the United States own 58 operations and produce 71% of the sand. Because of the availability of in- expensive and high-quality sand in the region, foundry sand production in the Midwest (74% of the U.S. total) is espe- cially concentrated. The finer fractions of the Kankakee dune sands may serve a special market niche in the foundry industry because of the angularity of the sand grains. Although competition from plastic containers and the rise in recycling have affected some glass markets, the container market still dominates the glass-making industry. Flat glass pro- duction has been increasing steadily as a result of rising demand in the build- ing and automobile markets. About 37% of the silica sand produced is con- sumed by the glass industry. Among non-glass uses, foundry users are the dominant market. For small produc- ers, such as the proposed Kankakee undertaking, other uses for silica sand should be carefully studied. Some of these uses are for specialty glasses, abrasives, ceramics, hydraulic fractur- ing of rocks in crude oil production, fiberglass, filtration, and chemicals. New sand producers in the Midwest face a highly competitive market with lower-than-average prices in major consumer sectors, such as glass manu- facture and foundry applications. Therefore, if a silica sand is to be pro- duced near Kankakee, it is essential that a market niche exists for it. The search for the market niche should be based on a combination of product specialty and delivered price in nearby industrial areas. Glass production from conventional silica sand requires the addition of feldspar or nepheline syenite as a source of alumina. The dunes of Kankakee County contain feldspar and thus offer an advantage over conven- tional silica sand, especially in the mar- kets for amber glass and selected mar- kets for ceramics. Feldspar The market prospects for feldspar ap- pear to be better than for foundry or glass sand, primarily because (1) most U.S. feldspar is produced in states dis- tant from the northern industrial areas, linois State Geological Survey linois Minerals 122 (2) feldspar commands a relatively high free-on-board (f.o.b.) price, and (3) feldspar's mineral substitute, nepheline syenite, is imported at similarly high prices from Ontario, Canada. Feldspar is produced in North Carolina, Califor- nia, Virginia, Georgia, Idaho, and South Dakota. North Carolina alone accounts for 54% of the total U.S. feldspar pro- duction. Of the 14 producing opera- tions in the United States in 1996, five were in North Carolina, four in Califor- nia, and one each in the other five states. Feldspar supplies essential alumina, al- kalis, and alkaline earths in glass manu- facture and imparts hardness, durabil- ity, and resistance to chemical corro- sion to the glass. The feldspar content in glass varies from about 8% to 18%, depending upon the type of glass pro- duced. The United States annually pro- duces about 1 million tons of feldspar and imports about 275,000 tons of nepheline syenite annually. About 70% of U.S. feldspar production is used by the glass -making industry. The other 30% is utilized in the manufacture of ceramic products, pottery, and many other products. State-by-state con- sumption data for feldspar are no longer available. However, the most re- cent data from 1990 indicate that at least 50,000 tons of feldspar were con- sumed in Illinois and Indiana that year, all of which was imported from North Carolina and Canada. Feldspar pro- duction in Kankakee County would be a source of this raw material close to its industrial markets. Feldspar's mar- ket price ranges from $45 to $80 per ton f.o.b. mine. Typically, the glass marketing industry pays lower prices for feldspar, and the ceramic industries pay higher prices. Transportation from traditional producer states to mid- western customers typically double these prices. Suggested Processing of Kankakee Dune Sand The results of the 1974 study by Ehrlinger and Masters and the analyses of samples collected for the present study indicate that three or more sand products can be processed from the Kankakee dune sand using drag classi- fiers, screens, spirals, magnetic separa- tors, air classifiers, and froth flotation. The three products that can be pro- duced from the Kankakee sand are amber glass sand, foundry sand, and feldspar. Four process flow diagrams were stud- ied: I: Amber glass sand (fig. 3) II: Foundry sand and amber glass sand (fig. 4) III: Feldspar and amber glass sand (fig. 5) IV: Feldspar (fig. 6) Flow diagram III can be refined further by adding a classification step to sepa- rate foundry sand from amber glass sand fractions, depending upon market conditions. The carbonate content, if found to be more significant than in current samples, may require the addi- tion of a flotation step before the desliming steps in flow diagrams I and II. Flow diagram IV assumes that feld- spar would be the main marketable product. The quartz sand left after feldspar recovery could be either re- turned to the mine or could be sold as foundry or glass sand for construction purposes. In every case, the products are likely to contain material other than the desired main mineral. That is, the feldspar may contain some quartz and vice versa. Therefore, the mass flows have been adjusted to reduce the product yield compared with the sample compositions. Although labo- ratory analyses have estimated the feldspar content to average about 17% in the 1974 study and about 2 1% in the present study, the recovery of feldspar may be somewhat lower. How much lower the recovery will actually be is unclear at this time. Therefore, we have prepared the economic analyses with several scenarios. For the same reason, we recommend follow-up pro- cessing experiments. Preliminary Cost Estimates Estimates of necessary plant invest- ments, equipment operating costs, wages, and salaries were made for a production unit of 100,000 to 102,000 tons per year for each proposed pro- cess flow diagram, based on 1997 data- bases purchased from Western Mine Engineering Inc. of Spokane, Washing- ton, and the 1982 equipment and capi- tal cost estimation guide published by the Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (Mular 1982). To account for losses during processing caused by removal of ultra-fine material (slimes), heavy minerals, and magnetic miner- als, the required plant input capacity was set at 1 12,000 tons per year. The plant was designed to operate for two shifts a day for 200 days per year. The initial investments in mining and processing plant equipment and the hourly plant operating costs (including maintenance labor, parts, fuel, lubri- cants, tires and electricity, but exclud- ing the wages and salaries of the work force that runs the plant) are presented in appendix B for each of the four flow diagrams. Initial investment in plant equipment was estimated to be about $1. 165 million for flow diagram I, $1,322 million for flow diagram II, $ 1 . 685 million for flow diagram III, and $1,304 million for flow diagram IV These estimates include mining and hauling equipment but not land pur- chase or cost of the building. We recog- nize the possible need for investment for the treatment and disposal of waste water, as well as the cost of land recla- mation, but, at this preliminary stage of the study, we have chosen to postpone the consideration of these costs be- cause we assume maximum recycling of water and limited reclamation work (grading and revegetation) because sand mining will be limited to dunes above groundwater level. Further- more, investment data acquired from Western Mine Engineering (2000) are manufacturers' suggested list prices; actual prices are expected to include discounts common in the industry. Operation and maintenance of equip- ment, excluding the wages and salaries of regular operating staff, are esti- mated to cost about $85 per hour for flow diagram I, $88 for flow diagram II, $111 per hour for flow diagram III, and $57 for flow diagram IV. We assume plant operation of 16 hours per day for 200 days per year. Winter weather and other down-time are assumed to re- strict operations to an average of 5 days per week for 40 weeks. Any in- lllinois Minerals 122 linois State Geological Survey 35.0 tons/hour I ~| feed storage bin conveyer belt clzzzd] heavy/magnetic minerals reject (1.4 tons/hour) ■*■ + 2-mm reject (0.7 tons/hour) overflow acid water \_i -65-^m reject (1 .05 tons/hour) desliming cyclone conveyer belt belt jpp stockpile O-"^ gas dryer magnetic separator Figure 3 Flow diagram I: Amber glass sand. 35.0 tons/hour 1 feed storage bin amber glass sand (31.85 tons/hour) product storage bin (2,500-ton capacity) c onve yer belt cf Id ] •* +2-mm reject (0.7 tons/hour) acid water I J attrition tank -65-^m reject (1 .05 tons/hour) desliming cyclone mixing tank s|urry pump air classifier heavy/magnetic minerals reject (1.4 tons/hour) conveyer beltl stockpile gas dryer t3J fan magnetic separator Figure 4 Flow diagram II: Foundry sand and amber glass sand. +212-/xm amber glass sand (16.45 tons/hour) ^7 -212-/*m foundry sand (15.4 tons/hour xy product storage bins (1,200-ton capacfty)( 1,300-ton capacity) linois State Geological Survey Illinois Minerals 122 35.0 tons/hour I feed storage bin + 2-mm reject (0.7 tons/hour) overflow acid water -65-/zm reject (1.05 tons/hour) L desliming cyclone dewatering cyclone ■* /^T\ *■ magnetic minerals reject (0.875 tons/hour) stockpile p* conveyer belt O O — gas dryer conveyer belt gas dryer feldspar (5.35 tons/hour) stockpile amber glass sand (25.9 tons/hour) product storage bin (425-ton capacity) product storage bin (2,100-ton capacity) Figure 5 Flow diagram III: Feldspar and amber glass sand. linois Minerals 122 linois State Geological Survey 35.0 tons/hour I feed storage bin conveyer belt Figure 6 Flow diagram IV: Feldspar + 2-mm reject (0.7 tons/hour) acid water attrition tank -65-/xm reject (1.05 tons/hour) desliming mixing tank slurry pump water + reagents crease in the number of operating days or daily operating hours would con- tribute to some reduction in cost per ton of product. Preliminary Economic Feasibility The economic feasibility of the venture was estimated for the four process flow diagrams. The initial investments in mining and processing plant equip- ment are listed in appendix B. The ba- sic assumptions for other costs and operating parameters are as in table 3. The cash flows generated under these conditions over 20 years were dis- counted to the present time at an 18% annual rate. The required price for the product mix was varied until the net present value of the discounted cash flow was zero or very nearly zero. Results The results of the net present value analysis estimates, presented in detail in appendix C, indicate that the under- taking can be economically viable in all scenarios if the tonnage and price con- ditions presented in table 2 are met in the first year of full operation. Note that in flow diagrams IV (C) and IV (D), the process is designed to separate am- ber glass sand but assumes the final product will be sold as construction sand. The results detailed in appendix heavy minerals reject (0.875 tons/hour) magnetic minerals reject (0.875 tons/hour) feldspar (6.6 tons/hour) quartz sand + heavy minerals (24.9 tons/hour) product storage bin 550-ton capacity C are summarized in table 2. Discussion The current f.o.b. market price for glass sand in the Midwest is about $9.50 per ton. However, to make glass, feld- spar must be added to the sand (8% to 18% feldspar and 82% to 92% silica sand). Feldspar produced in North Carolina costs $90 to $1 10 per ton in the Midwest because of additional transportation costs. Thus, 1 ton of material for glass making in the Mid- west costs at least $17.55 if its feldspar content is 10%. Amber glass sand produced from the Kankakee sand dunes at a cost of $8.00 K7 to $12.17 per ton already contains more feldspar than needed for glass making and would, therefore, be eco- nomically attractive. At high-capacity utilization of the plant, glass sand could be produced for $6.60 per ton; feldspar would have to be added, however, thus raising total cost to about $10.00, which is still favorable compared with out-of- state feldspar purchased for the pur- pose. Foundry sand produced at a cost of $ 1 1 .00 per ton is as expensive as its current market price. The price of foundry sand is influenced by the fine- ness of sand, other characteristics re- maining unchanged. Finer sand makes linois State Geological Survey linois Minerals 122 Table 2 Summary of economic results detailed in appendix C. Amber glass sand Foundry Production sand Price' Feldspar Construction sand Flow diagram Production Price 1 Production Price' Production Price 1 Material loss (scenario) (tons/yr) ($/ton) (tons/yr) ($/ton) (tons/yr) ($/ton) (tons/yr) ($/ton) (tons/yr) 1 101,920 11.01 10,080 II 52,640 12.17 49,280 11.00 10,080 III (A) 81,200 8.00 19,040 41.69 11,760 lll(B) 76,720 7.66 23,520 36.40 11,760 IN(C) 83,440 8.00 16,800 46.18 11,760 IV (A) 19,040 60.16 92,960 IV (B) 16,800 68.20 95,200 IV (C) 16,800 53.20 83,440 3.00 11,760 IV (D) 19,040 47.37 81,200 3.00 11,760 III (HCU) 2 156,450 6.60 31,500 35.40 22,050 1 Price is f.o.b. at plant. 2 High-capacity utilization (HCU) version of III (C), with three shifts per day and 250 days per year of operation. Table 3 Basic assumptions for costs and operating parameters (see also appendix B). Parameter Cost assumptions Land purchase Building Other investments Manpower Working capital Cost/price escalation Discount rate Taxes $100,000 $20,000 43% of equipment cost to be added for transportation of equipment, installation, pumps, pipes, and instrumentation. Five persons per shift are needed for flow diagrams I and II, and six persons per shift are needed for flow diagrams III and IV. Equivalent to 3 months of production at break-even cost per ton of production. All costs were increased at 3% per year; product prices were increased at 2% per year. 1 8%, based on the capital asset pricing model and an above-average market risk. 40% of taxable income to account for federal, state, and local taxes. Domestic feldspar and industrial sand production is entitled to a 14% depletion allowance not included in the tax rate estimate. better quality foundry molds, which require less finishing work on the foundry output. With the estimated cost of foundry sand production being equal to the current market price, marketing and innovative pricing would assume a bigger role in selling the foundry sand product. The finer size, greater angularity of dune sands, and the proximity of the mining site to the industrial areas in northeastern Illi- nois and northwestern Indiana may of- fer an opportunity for niche markets, despite competition from traditional foundry sand sources. Feldspar recovery rate is critical to the overall economics of the plant. Three alternative feldspar recovery scenarios have been calculated for flow diagram III: 17%, 21%, and 15%. The remaining material, after accounting for the re- moval of heavy and magnetic minerals, can be used for glass making, as foundry sand, or for other purposes. The production cost for feldspar ranges from $41.69 to $46.18 per ton and is well below the market price of North Carolina feldspar sold in the Midwest. The production cost of silica sand (containing small quantities of feldspar) in all scenarios is below the current market price for silica sand. High production of silica sand in the Midwest results in lower-than-average prices. Therefore, flow diagram IV was designed for the recovery of feldspar only. The feldspar recovery rates were assumed to be 17% and 15%. As a sec- ondary variation, the remaining sand after feldspar recovery was assumed to be either returned to the mine unsold (scenarios A and B) or sold as common construction sand without further pro- cessing (scenarios C and D). If sand material is not sold, the feldspar would 1 linois Minerals 122 Illinois State Geological Survey have to be sold for $60. 16 to $68.20 per ton. Although this price range would be substantially higher than in flow dia- gram III, it remains significantly below the midwestern market price of North Carolina feldspar and Canadian nepheline syenite. If sand material left over after feldspar recovery is sold as common construction sand for $3 per ton, the recovered feldspar could be sold at a much lower price of $47.37 to $53.30 per ton. All estimates thus far have been based on two operating assumptions: (1) two daily working shifts and (2) 200 annual operating days. Practical experience suggests that mineral processing plants run most efficiendy when operated round-the-clock (three shifts daily) and at least 250 days per year. There is a good possibility that, in the Kankakee area, the plant could be operated 300 days or more per year. Such a change would increase plant utilization and raise the production capacity by about 80%, without additional investment. It would increase employment because of the added third shift, proportion- ately increase operation and mainte- nance expenses, but lower the cost per ton of the products. The costs of flow diagram III under the revised, high- capacity utilization assumptions are listed in the last row of table 2, and the details are given in appendix table C10. The economic break-even point under this scenario is attained if the feldspar is sold at $35.40 per ton and the sand product is sold at $6.60 per ton. This result is a considerable improve- ment over all previous scenarios. The other scenarios show similar cost re- ductions if the plant operations are ex- tended to three shifts and 250 days per year. Economic analyses of all scenarios sug- gest that the processing of Kankakee dune sand deserves the attention of in- vestors. However, despite the encour- aging results, this study must be treated as a preliminary feasibility study subject to limitations. Limitations The primary caveat for the investor is the unknown demand situation in northern Illinois, southeastern Wiscon- sin, southwestern Michigan, and north- ern Indiana. We recommend that a de- tailed survey be made of potential cus- tomers in these areas. We also recom- mend that extensive sampling and analysis of the dunes be undertaken in order to determine the variations in feldspar content and the separability of feldspar and quartz, as well as the par- ticle size of the sand — the former be- cause feldspar is the more valuable component, and the latter because particle size of sand used in foundries can significantly influence its price. Sand processing tests in the laboratory are also recommended to determine more precisely the recovery rates for all products, but especially feldspar. The strongest selling point for the ven- ture would be that a local source of sand containing up to 21% feldspar for the manufacture of amber glass and ceramics would be made available. Po- tential also exists for manufacturers of glass, ceramic wares, or metal castings to locate in the area to take advantage of raw materials near their source. Jobs created by any such ventures would require skilled personnel. Training the work force for the jobs would require additional investment in the future of the area. Environmental and Land Use Impacts If extraction took place at a scale of 100,000 tons per year, fewer than 3 acres would be affected annually, as- suming an average mining depth of 15 feet. According to the Illinois Depart- ment of Natural Resource's Office of Mines and Minerals, a mining permit is not needed unless at least 10 acres of land are affected annually. The scale of mining considered in this study could thus result in reduction of dune size in up to 3 acres of land annually. If more than 15 feet of sand are mined, the acreage affected annually would be re- duced further, but the dunes in the af- fected areas would be eliminated. If only feldspar is mined and marketed, almost 80% of the material would be returned to the mine site, considerably reducing the impact on the landscape. Over the 20 years of operating life, of several thousand acres of dune land- scape in southeastern Kankakee County, only about 60 acres would be affected. However, we have made no environmental assessments for this study, and we assume that such assess- ments would be one of the prerequi- sites before investments would be made in land and plant. The dunes of Kankakee County are quite permeable. Their carbonate con- tents and other minerals have been subject to rainwater percolation for centuries. The groundwater table in the area is quite close to the dune base. Al- though the pH of groundwater shows no apparent effect from either the car- bonates or other chemical substances, the issue of groundwater needs to be assessed before any investment deci- sions are made. Dust created during mining and pro- cessing would have to be monitored and suppressed with appropriate mea- sures such as spraying, provision of proper enclosures, and vacuum collec- tion. Dust emissions from the mine, plant, and transport trucks may re- quire Environmental Protection Agency and Mine Safety and Health Act permits. Experience in a similar plant in central Illinois indicates that effective dust control is feasible. Future Work The ISGS could be of assistance in fur- ther investigations on a contractual ba- sis. Such assistance could be provided in several areas, including (1) collection of drill hole and surface samples, (2) chemical and mineralogical analyses, (3) particle-size and optical micro- scope analyses, and (4) environmental and hydrologic assessment. Mineral processing experiments should involve testing with a variety of equipment, which may require industrial involve- ment. However, ISGS staff can be of assistance in coordinating the effort and, in some cases, may be able to per- form bench-scale tests. It is the policy of the ISGS to assist and enhance the role of the private enterprise in the state's economy. In certain scientific areas where it has capabilities not readily found in the private sector, the ISGS will provide assistance in the pub- lic interest. Interested parties may con- tact the authors of this study. linois State Geological Survey linois Minerals 122 11 References Ehrlinger, H.R, III, and H.W. Jackman, 1970, Lower Mississippi River terrace sands as a commercial source of feldspar: Illinois State Geological Survey Industrial Minerals Note 43, 18 p. Ehrlinger, H.P., III, and J.M. Masters, 1974, Commercial feldspar resources in southeastern Kankakee County, Il- linois: Illinois State Geological Survey Illinois Minerals Note 56, 18 p. Ehrlinger, H.R, III, W.G. ten Kate, and H.W. Jackman, 1969, Kankakee dune sands as a commercial source of feldspar: Illinois Geological Survey Industrial Minerals Note 38, 17 p. Hunter, R.E., 1965, Feldspar in Illinois sands — A further study: Illinois Geo- logical Survey Circular 39 1 , 19 p. Mular, A.L., 1982, Mining and mineral processing equipment cost and pre- liminary capital cost estimations, Special volume 25: Montreal, Que- bec, Canadian Institute of Mining and Metalurgy, p. 103. Western Mine Engineering, Inc., 2000, Mine and mill equipment costs — An estimator's guide: Spokane, Washing- ton, Western Mine Engineering, Inc. Willman, H.B., 1942, Feldspar in Illinois sands — A study of resources: Illinois Geological Survey Report of Investi- gation 79, 87 p. Appendix A Mineralogic Analysis We have used XRF chemical analyses and XRD mineralogical analyses to determine the mineralogical content of these sands and the underlying lacustrine (lake- deposited) sands. The XRD data on mineral content are gen- erally less accurate and less precise than bulk chemical analyses, so the all- important calculation of quartz and feldspar contents are based on the XRF chemical data. Table 1 presents the mineral content and feldspar content ratios calculated from XRF data on the three composite dune sand samples from each of the test borings, both in bulk and after they were screened to <1 mm and >63 /um. A sample (3669A) from Ehrlinger and Masters ( 1974) was also submitted for XRF analysis. Be- cause this sample contains both calcite and dolomite, the calcium in these minerals causes an overestimation of the Ca-plagioclase in this sample. Our calculations were made by (1) using the XRD percentages for illite and mica, chlorite, hornblende, and pyrite/mar- casite to calculate the percentages of chemical oxides for these minerals; (2) subtracting these percentages from the bulk oxide composition (see table A3) ; (3) calculating from the remaining per- centages of K,0, Nap, and CaO the K- feldspar, Na-plagioclase, and Ca-pla- gioclase contents, respectively; and (4) calculating the percentage of quartz by subtracting the Si0 2 content of each of the three feldspars from the total Si0 2 remaining after calculation 2. We also checked the feldspar estimates by cal- culating the percentage of A1 2 3 that the three feldspars would contain and comparing it to the amount remaining after the corrections in calculation 1. That calculation indicated that the esti- mates of feldspar content are probably accurate to 1% or less, except for the Ca-plagioclase calculated for sample 3669A. On the basis of the average feld- spar ratios calculated for the six 3706 samples in table 1, the Ca-plagioclase content of sample 3669A is about 6%. A final comment about accuracy is that most of the small differences between bulk and screened samples are prob- ably caused by variation in the feldspar content of the <63-,um tailings. Mineralogical percentages calculated from XRD for dune and lacustrine sands (samples 3707A-U) are shown in table Al. The XRD results also are given for the three bulk composite dune samples that were analyzed by XRF (3706A-C). The results are given for 5- foot intervals of the three borings and the lacustrine samples from all three borings. The means and standard de- viations of each of the four sets of XRD data are also given. With the XRD data for samples 3706A-C, we have included the Na-plagioclase ratio calculated from the XRF data. The method was modified to use the percentages of quartz and feldspar calculated from XRF data to refine our XRD mineral quantification ratios. Because these values combine errors from both chemical and XRD determinations, these data likely contain greater errors (generally 5% to 10% of the amount). However, the uniformity of the per- centages from interval to interval and boring to boring, and their low stan- dard deviations, suggests that the de- terminations are very precise; that is, they give the same result each time and for replicate samples. Measuring the error in these estimates, however, re- quires XRF chemical analyses for each XRD sample, which is beyond the scope of this project. Neither XRF nor XRD analyses allow illite to be distin- guished from mica or pyrite from mar- casite. The illite versus mica distinction is a construct, because both minerals have a wide particle-size range, and fine-grained micas behave like coarse- grained illite. Further, because marca- site is so unstable in oxygenated groundwater, most of the pyrite /mar- casite in these sands is almost certainly pyrite. Also, other methods should be employed in follow-up studies to de- termine whether pyrite is actually present and, if so, the accurate pyrite content. Finally, the properties of illite and mica and pyrite and marcasite are so similar that the composite percent- age is adequate for our estimates of both processing and marketing feasi- bility. The chemical contents of acetic acid extracts (supernates) from individual 5-foot intervals, composites, and the Ehrlinger and Masters (1974) samples are shown in table A2. These determi- nations are made by inductively coupled plasma analyses, and only 9 of the 31 elements occur at concentra- tions great enough to be detectable. The results show that the dune sands contain small amounts of all the ele- ments, and so little calcium and mag- nesium are present in the dune sand samples (3706 and 3707) that an acid or carbonate flotation step may be elimi- nated from the process. The estimated contents of the carbonate minerals are given in the last three columns of table A2; these estimates were calculated by converting the calcium and magne- sium contents of each sample to cal- cite, dolomite, and total carbonate contents. 1 2 linois Minerals 122 Illinois State Geological Survey Table A1 Average mineral composition (as percentages) determined by XRD analysis (recalculated based upon XRD factors modified from XRF chemical analyses) and ratios of K-spar and Na-plag. Sample lllite Horn- Pyrite/ Total K-spar K-spar Na-plag (bulk pack) & mica Chlorite blende Quartz K-spar Plag Calcite Dolomite marcasite feldspar ratio 12 ratio 12 ratio 13 3707A 1.8 0.4 0.7 80 6.2 10 0.0 0.0 0.4 17 0.37 3707B 1.7 0.7 0.5 77 5.9 14 0.0 0.0 0.8 20 0.30 3707C 2.7 0.5 0.6 74 8.8 11 0.0 0.0 1.6 20 0.43 3707D 2.3 0.4 0.3 82 5.3 8.9 0.0 0.0 0.3 14 0.37 Mean 2.1 0.5 0.5 78 6.5 11 0.8 18 0.37 Std dev 0.42 0.13 0.14 3.0 1.3 1.8 0.50 2.4 0.05 3706A 1.3 1.6 0.6 75 5.8 15 ND 4 ND ND 21 0.28 0.37 0.58 3707F 0.9 0.4 0.5 83 7.8 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 15 0.52 3707G 1.3 0.2 0.3 79 8.2 10 0.0 0.0 0.7 18 0.45 3707H 1.7 0.3 0.2 78 9.7 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 20 0.49 3707I 1.9 0.2 0.1 80 7.9 9.4 0.0 0.0 0.5 17 0.46 3707J 2.6 0.4 0.6 74 10 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 22 0.45 Mean 1.7 0.3 0.3 79 8.8 9.8 0.2 19 0.47 Std dev 0.57 0.08 0.16 3.0 1.0 1.7 0.30 2.5 0.03 3706B 1.5 0.8 0.5 82 3.8 11 ND ND ND 15 0.26 0.47 0.61 3707M 1.5 0.5 0.5 77 8.3 11 0.0 0.0 0.8 19 0.43 3707N 1.7 0.6 0.7 77 9.0 9.7 0.0 0.0 0.8 19 0.48 3707O 1.8 0.5 0.5 77 7.8 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 20 0.39 3707P 1.6 0.3 0.2 74 10 13 0.0 0.0 0.3 23 0.43 3707Q 1.7 0.6 0.4 80 7.5 9.4 0.0 0.0 0.5 17 0.44 3707R 1.9 0.4 0.4 74 10 12 0.0 0.0 0.6 22 0.46 3707S 2.0 0.6 0.6 74 9.3 13 0.0 0.0 0.7 23 0.41 Mean 1.8 0.5 0.5 76 8.9 12 0.5 20 0.44 Std dev 0.14 0.11 0.15 2.1 1.0 1.4 0.27 2.1 0.03 3706C 1.5 0.9 0.6 74 4.5 18 ND ND ND 23 0.20 0.44 0.57 3707E 5 2.4 0.8 1.0 68 8.8 16 1.2 2.0 0.0 25 0.35 3707K 5 1.3 0.4 0.4 76 7.2 11 1.8 1.8 0.3 18 0.39 3707L 5 1.4 0.4 0.3 71 9.6 11 2.3 3.3 0.3 21 0.46 3707T 5 1.9 0.4 0.2 74 10 13 0.3 0.0 0.0 23 0.43 3707U 5 1.2 0.4 0.6 62 11 16 3.4 5.8 0.0 27 0.40 Mean 1.7 0.5 0.5 70 9.3 14 0.12 3 0.41 Std dev 0.43 0.16 0.31 4.9 1.2 2.1 0.15 2.9 0.04 1 By XRD. 2 Calculated ratio of %K-spar to %K-spar + %plagioclase feldspars. 3 Calculated ratio of %Na-plag to %Na-plag + %Ca-plag. 4 Not determined. 5 Samples taken from the lacustrine sediments from the bottom of each of the three boreholes. Table A3 gives the XRF data for these samples; it also includes a calculated loss on ignition (LOI), which is deter- mined by subtracting the sum of the chemical oxides from 100%. A better LOI can be calculated by extracting the samples with acetic acid and employ- ing a modified LOI procedure, which requires ( 1 ) heating to 1 10 ° C overnight and weighing, (2) heating the samples at 350 °C for 4 hours and weighing, and (3) heating the samples for 2 hours at 1,000°C and weighing. The LOI for illite and mica, chlorite, hornblende, and pyrite /marcasite can then be calcu- lated and, for validation and improved estimates of mineral content, com- pared with the result from heating. The liquid (supernates) from the acetic acid extractions can also be submitted for inductively coupled plasma analyses, and those results can be used to calcu- late calcite and dolomite contents. Tables A4 and A5 show the averages and standard deviations of mineral contents of samples from the three boreholes and the lacustrine sediments in the boreholes. As shown in table A4, the dunes are composed of an average of about 74% silica and 21% feldspar. Small amounts of illite and mica, cholrite, hornblende, and pyrite/ mar- casite, totaling about 5%, also are present. Calcite and dolomite were detected by XRD in only the underly- ing lacustrine sediments. If the lacus- trine sediments are grouped separately, they contain about 70% silica and 23% feldspar (table A5). Table A6 shows the chemical oxide contents of sand in the boreholes, and table A7 lists the mineral contents as well as the chemical oxide contents of the sand from Ehrlinger and Masters (1974). Tables A5 to A8 indicate that the mineralogical as well as chemical oxide compositions of the sand as determined during the present study, agree closely with results of Ehrlinger and Masters (1974). The minor differences in the results of the two studies are due mainly to the separate identification by linois State Geological Survey linois Minerals 122 13 Table A2 Acetic acid-extractable content (milligrams per gram of sample) as determined by inductively coupled plasma (ICP) chemical analyses and percentages of calcite and dolomite and their sums, calculated from ICP results. Calcite Sample Al B Ca Fe Mg Mn Na S Si Calcite (%) Dolomite (%) + dolomite (%) 3706A 0.16 0.04 0.32 0.29 0.08 0.03 0.12 0.62 0.09 0.05 0.06 0.11 3706B 0.21 0.04 0.33 0.35 0.08 0.02 0.12 0.71 0.14 0.05 0.06 0.11 3706C 0.25 0.03 0.15 0.20 0.02 0.02 0.12 0.61 0.10 0.03 0.02 0.04 Mean 0.21 0.04 0.27 0.28 0.06 0.02 0.12 0.65 0.11 0.04 0.05 0.09 Std dev 0.04 0.001 0.09 0.06 0.03 0.003 0.002 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.03 3707A 0.41 0.07 0.55 0.20 0.06 0.01 0.13 0.18 0.18 0.11 0.05 0.16 3707B 0.37 0.08 0.96 0.41 0.09 0.02 0.17 0.12 0.32 0.20 0.07 0.27 3707C 0.28 0.09 0.85 0.56 0.57 0.03 0.17 0.14 0.51 0.00 0.43 0.41 3707D 0.20 0.15 0.41 0.17 0.14 0.02 0.17 0.21 0.12 0.05 0.10 0.15 Mean 0.31 0.10 0.69 0.33 0.21 0.02 0.16 0.16 0.28 0.09 0.16 0.25 Std dev 0.08 0.03 0.22 0.16 0.21 0.005 0.01 0.03 0.15 0.08 0.16 0.10 3707F 0.34 0.08 0.37 0.16 0.03 0.01 0.12 0.11 0.15 0.08 0.02 0.10 3707G 0.47 0.08 0.36 0.21 0.03 0.02 0.11 0.11 0.19 0.08 0.02 0.10 3707H 0.26 0.11 0.33 0.13 0.05 0.02 0.14 0.11 0.15 0.06 0.03 0.10 37071 0.28 0.18 0.38 0.18 0.20 0.02 0.24 0.29 0.25 0.01 0.15 0.16 3707J 0.22 0.20 0.24 0.06 0.03 0.003 0.12 0.03 0.08 0.05 0.02 0.07 Mean 0.31 0.13 0.34 0.15 0.07 0.01 0.15 0.13 0.17 0.06 0.05 0.11 Std dev 0.09 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.01 0.05 0.08 0.06 0.02 0.05 0.03 3707M 0.48 0.08 0.34 0.28 0.02 0.005 0.11 0.20 0.15 0.07 0.02 0.09 3707N 0.48 0.09 0.29 0.29 0.03 0.005 0.12 0.18 0.20 0.06 0.02 0.08 3707O 0.49 0.08 0.43 0.18 0.03 0.01 0.13 0.13 0.19 0.10 0.02 0.12 3707P 0.64 0.07 0.29 0.14 0.04 0.01 0.12 0.14 0.23 0.05 0.03 0.09 3707Q 0.44 0.08 0.32 0.15 0.02 0.01 0.11 0.09 0.17 0.07 0.02 0.09 3707R 0.36 0.08 0.27 0.26 0.02 0.02 0.10 0.000 0.16 0.06 0.02 0.07 3707S 0.38 0.08 0.42 0.17 0.03 0.01 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.09 0.02 0.11 Mean 0.47 0.08 0.34 0.21 0.03 0.01 0.12 0.13 0.18 0.07 0.02 0.09 Std dev 0.09 0.005 0.06 0.06 0.01 0.004 0.02 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.02 3707E' 0.42 0.15 4.8 0.30 1.2 0.03 0.23 0.18 0.24 0.73 0.88 1.6 3707K 1 0.29 0.14 6.3 0.19 1.2 0.02 0.20 0.31 0.13 1.1 0.92 2.0 3707L 1 0.24 0.14 7.1 0.20 2.0 0.02 0.15 0.23 0.12 0.95 1.5 2.4 3707T' 0.34 0.14 0.46 0.17 0.03 0.02 0.20 0.24 0.14 0.10 0.02 0.12 3707U' 0.74 0.12 9.6 0.24 3.1 0.03 0.21 0.000 0.41 1.1 2.4 3.5 Ave 0.39 0.14 5.3 0.21 1.3 0.02 0.19 0.16 0.20 0.76 1.0 1.8 Std dev 0.17 0.01 2.9 0.05 1.0 0.01 0.02 0.12 0.10 0.34 0.77 1.1 3669A 2 0.29 0.14 3.3 0.15 0.47 0.03 0.18 0.000 0.14 0.62 0.36 0.98 1 Samples taken from the lacustrine sediments from the bottom of each of the three boreholes. 2 Ehrlinger and Masters (1974) sample. Table A3 Chemical content (as percentages) by XRF chemical analyses. Sample SiO. AIA FeA CaO MgO Kfi Na 2 TiO„ P O MnO LOP Sr (ppm) Ba (ppm) Zr (ppm) 3706A 2 87.78 5.36 1.87 0.71 0.40 1.63 0.87 0.34 0.06 0.03 0.95 121 279 244 3706B 2 89.83 4.97 0.92 0.42 0.24 1.77 0.75 0.17 0.02 0.02 0.89 109 317 80 3706C 2 88.67 5.36 1.18 0.53 0.31 1.83 0.84 0.22 0.07 0.02 0.97 111 327 123 3706A 3 88.64 5.01 1.04 0.54 0.15 1.43 0.81 0.12 0.01 0.03 2.2 93 65 124 3706B 3 89.11 5.31 1.00 0.44 0.26 1.81 0.77 0.18 0.03 0.02 1.1 105 311 66 3706C 3 87.90 5.67 1.40 0.59 0.34 1.89 0.87 0.27 0.04 0.03 1.0 119 338 193 3669A 3 85.14 5.34 1.58 1.90 4 0.72 4 1.76 0.92 0.29 0.06 0.03 2.3 128 305 256 1 Calculated as 1 00% minus sum of oxides. 2 Samples screened <1 mm >65 /^m. 3 Bulk samples. 4 Percentages are elevated because of the presence of calcite and dolomite. 1 4 Illinois Minerals 122 linois State Geological Survey Ehrlinger and Masters of mixed-min- eral (silica and feldspar) grains, felds- pathic rock fragments, and chert. Table A8 gives the particle-size distri- butions for composite samples of the dune sands in the three cores. Dune sands in general have narrow ranges of particle size, which seem to fit this nor- mal trend. Although the average par- ticle-size ranges reported in table A8 are coarser than those found in the 1974 study, the range is similar in both studies. The finer average particle size found in the earlier study indicates that the samples of Ehrlinger and Masters (1974) were from the finer, distal (i.e., farther downwind and thinner) parts of dunes, suggesting that part or all of the difference in feldspar content, if any, is due to differences in sampling sites for the two studies. Table A4 Average (mean ± standard deviation) mineral content for dune sands in three borings, calculated from XRF and XRD analyses (see table A1). Table A5 Average (mean ± standard deviation) mineral content for lacustrine sediments in three borings, calculated from XRF and XRD analyses (see table A1). Mineral Content (%) Analysis Mineral Content (%) Analysis Quartz K-feldspar Plagioclase Total feldspar lllite and mica Chlorite Hornblende 73.5 ± 1.5 8.8 ± 1.3 11.8 ±0.9 20.6 ± 1.6 1.4 ±0.1 1.1 ±0.4 0.6 ± 0.1 Pyrite/marcasite 0.1 ± 0.2 XRF XRF XRF XRF XRD XRD XRD XRD Quartz K-feldspar Plagioclase Total feldspar Calcite Dolomite lllite and mica Chlorite Hornblende 70 9.3 13.6 22.9 1.8 2.6 1.7 0.5 0.5 4.9 1.2 2.2 2.9 1.0 1.9 0.4 0.2 0.3 Pyrite/marcasite 0.1 ± 0.2 XRF XRF XRF XRF XRF XRF XRD XRD XRD XRD Table A6 Average (mean ± standard deviation) chemical oxide content for dune sands in three borings, determined by XRF analyses (see table A3). Chemical oxide Content (%) Si0 2 A"A FeA CaO MgO KP Na z O Ti0 2 PA MnO LOI' Calculated as 100% minus the sum of the other oxides. 88.6 ±0.5 5.33 ±0.3 1.15 ±0.2 0.53 ±0.06 0.25 ±0.08 1.71 ±0.20 0.82 ±0.04 0.19 ±0.06 0.03 ±0.01 0.03 ±0.01 1.43 ±0.56 Table A7 Average chemical oxide and mineralogical composi- tion for dune sands from 13 samples from Ehrlinger and Masters (1974). Chemical (%) Mineral (%) K 2 1.45 Quartz 69.9 Na 2 0.89 Feldspar 17.65 CaO 0.68 Quartz/feldspar mixed 6.05 AIA 5.03 Feldspathic rock fragments 1.53 Si0 2 85.07 Chert 0.90 FeA 1.23 Heavy minerals 1.32 Ti0 2 0.18 Weight loss 2.65 Weight loss 4.47 Total Total 100.00 Table A8 Particle size obtained by wet screening of composite samples of dune sands from bore- holes 1 , 3, and 5 (weight percentages). Screen size Composite >1 mm 1-0.5 mm 500-250 urn 250-125 pm 125-63 urn <63 urn Borehole 1 Borehole 3 Borehole 5 0.00 0.02 0.00 34 32 6.9 32 17 31 27 39 53 3.1 8.7 7.6 3.2 3.6 2.2 linois State Geological Survey linois Minerals 122 15 Appendix B Plant Investments and Hourly Costs for Mining Dune Sands Table B1 Plant investments for mining and processing dune sands near Kankakee, Illinois (in 1997 U.S. dollars). EQUIPMENT COMMON TO ALL FOUR FLOW DIAGRAMS Mining 1 Rear dump truck, 20 tons, 15-yd 3 capacity, 180 hp (SU 34) 1 $276,000 1 Wheel loader, 3.5-yd 3 bucket, 9 ft 4 in dump half-ton, 170 hp (SU 22) $221 ,000 Subtotal 1 $497,000 Processing plant 1 Feed storage bin, hopper bottom, 9 ft x 24 ft, 1 ,277 ft 3 , 50-60 tons (Ml 1 08) $1 2,800 1 Feeder belt (estimated) $1 ,000 1 Inclined screen, 6 ft x 12 ft, single deck, 7.5 hp (ML 58) $1 6,265 2 Tanks, one with stirrers, for acid treatment and mixing (company quote to L.A. Khan for 15 tons/hr + $120,000; estimated cost by the 0.6 rule) $200,000 1 Slurry pump, centrifugal, 1,000 gal/min to handle 32 tons/hr solids in a 20% solids slurry, 50 ft head, 20 hp (Ml 86) $1 4,284 1 Hydrocyclone, 15 inches steel/rubber, 250-1,000 gal/min, 20% solids (ML 18) $4,590 Subtotal 2 $248,939 ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT Flow diagram I: Amber glass sand 1 Wet magnetic drum separator, 36 in x 5 ft drum, 6-7 tons/hr per foot of drum length capacity (ML 46; see also CIM 2 ) $44,480 1 Dryer, rotary, gas fired, 6 in x 50 ft, 2,120-11,310 lbs of water/hr (ML 20) $175,000 1 Dry product storage bin, 2,500-ton capacity, 5 days of production (Ml 108), Using 0.6 rule applied to the 29 ft x 72 ft tank $200,000 Subtotal 3 $419,480 Total for flow diagram I $1,165,419 Flow diagram II: Foundry sand and amber glass sand 1 Wet magnetic drum separator, 36 in x 5 ft drum, 6-7 tons/hr per foot of drum length capacity (ML 46; see also CIM), $44,480 1 Dryer as in flow diagram I. $175,000 1 Air classifier (separator), 10 ft x 17 ft, 40 tons/hr with motor $93,000 1 Dry product storage bin for foundry sand, 1 , 300-ton capacity (estimated by the 0.6 rule from flow diagram I) $135,100 1 Dry product storage bin for amber glass sand, 1 , 200-ton capacity (estimated by the 0.6 rule from flow diagram I) $1 28,800 Subtotal 4 $576,380 Total for flow diagram II $1 ,322,31 9 1 6 Illinois Minerals 1 22 Illinois State Geological Survey Flow diagram III: Feldspar and amber glass sand 20 Spirals @ 2 tons/hr capacity, $4,000 each (company quote to L.A. Khan) $80,000 1 Wet magnetic drum separator, 36 in x 5 ft drum, 6-7 tons/hr per foot of drum length capacity (ML 46; see also CIM) $44,480 1 Tank, 32 tons/hr capacity (estimated from data common to flow diagrams I, II, and III) $1 00,000 1 Flotation circuit: 20 cells @ 22.5-ft 3 capacity (25 tons/day), $7,400 per cell (ML 32) $1 48,000 5 Motors, 900 rpm, 7.5 hp each, @ $1,657 (Ml 46) $8,285 1 Dewatering cyclone for feldspar, 5.3 tons/hr, 20% solids, 6-in diameter, steel/rubber, 55-130 gal/min (ML 18) $2,255 1 Dewatering cyclone for amber sand, 26 tons/hr, 20% solids, 15-in diameter, steel/rubber, 250-1,000 gal/min (ML 18) $4,590 1 Tank for feldspar circuit, 4,000 gal (Ml 106) $4,100 1 Tank for amber glass sand circuit, 1 0,000 gal (Ml 1 06) $11 ,000 2 Feeder belts @ $1 ,000 $2,000 1 Dryer, rotary, gas fired for feldspar, 4 in x 30 ft, 560-3,020 lbs of water/hr, 20 hp (ML 20) $110,000 1 Dryer, rotary, gas fired for amber glass sand, 6 in x 50 ft, as in flow diagram I (ML 20) $175,000 1 Dry product storage bin for feldspar, 425-ton capacity, 5 days of production (estimated by the 0.6 rule from flow diagram I) $69,000 1 Dry product storage bin for amber glass sand, 2,100-ton capacity, 5 days of production (estimated by the 0.6 rule) $1 80,000 SubtOtal5 $938,710 Total for flow diagram III $1 ,684,649 Flow diagram IV: Feldspar 1 Tank, 32 tons/hr capacity (estimated from data common to all flow diagrams above) $100,000 1 Flotation circuit: 20 cells @ 22.5-ft 3 capacity (25 tons/day), $7,400 per cell (ML 32) $1 48,000 5 Motors, 900 rpm, 7.5 hp each, @ $1 ,657 (Ml 46) $8,285 20 Spirals @ 2 tons/hr capacity, $4,000 each (company quote to L.A. Khan) $80,000 1 Wet magnetic drum separator, 36 in x 5 ft drum, 6-7 tons/hr per foot of drum length capacity (ML 46; see also CIM) $28,800 1 Dewatering cyclone for feldspar, 5.3 tons/hr, 20% solids, 6-in diameter, steel/rubber, 55-130 gal/min (ML 18) $2,255 1 Feeder belt $1,000 1 Dryer, rotary, gas fired for feldspar, 4 in x 30 ft, 560-3,020 lbs of water/hr, 20 hp (ML 20) $11 0,000 1 Dry product storage bin for feldspar, 550-ton capacity, 5 days of production (estimated by the 0.6 rule from flow diagram I) $80,000 Subtotal 6 $558,340 Total for flow diagram IV (subtotals 1+2 + 6) $1 ,304,279 ' Numbers in parentheses refer to page numbers in Mine and Mill Equipment Costs: An Estimator's Guide (Western Mine Engineering, Inc. 2000). 2 Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (1982). Illinois State Geological Survey linois Minerals 122 17 Table B2 Hourly costs for mining and processing dune sands near Kankakee, Illinois (in 1997 U.S. dollars). EQUIPMENT COMMON TO ALL FOUR FLOW DIAGRAMS Mining Rear dump truck Wheel loader Processing plant Feed storage bin Feeder belt Inclined screen Tanks (estimated at 1% of investment per year) Slurry pump Hydrocyclone Parts $2.78 $3.78 $0.26 $0.03 $0.52 $0.72 $0.03 Maint. labor $1.39 $0.03 Lube Tires Electricity Gas $2.96 $2.02 $1.78 $3.12 $3.42 $1.45 $0.18 $0.02 $0.58 $0.14 Total $2.23 $11.77 $2.13 $13.90 Subtotal 1 $25.67 $0.44 $0.05 $1.24 $0.65 $2.11 $0.06 Subtotal 2 $4.55 Parts Flow diagram I: Amber glass sand Magnetic separator $0.53 Dryer $0.63 Product bin $4.04 Parts Flow diagram II: Foundry sand and amber glass sand Magnetic separator Dryer (as in I) 1 Air classifier (separator) Product bin (foundry sand) 52% of capacity of bin in I, prorated Product bin (amber glass sand) 48% of capacity of bin in I, prorated $1.11 ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT Maint. labor Lube Tires Electricity Gas $0.53 $0.43 $0.25 $0.90 $0.53 $0.48 $0.79 Subtotal 4 Total for flow diagram II (subtotals 1+2 + 4) Total $0.43 $0.25 $0.48 $1.69 $0.51 $1.00 $1.90 $41.83 $45.87 $2.85 $6.89 Subtotal 3 $54.45 Total for flow diagram I subtotals 1+2 + 3) $84.67 Maint. labor Lube Tires Electricity Gas Total $1.69 $45.87 $3.33 $3.58 $3.31 $57.78 $88.00 1 8 linois Minerals 122 Illinois State Geological Survey Parts Maint. labor Flow diagram III: Feldspar and amber glass sand Spirals (estimated 7% of investment based on ML 67) Magnetic separator Tank (estimated 1% of investment per year, see data common to all flow diagrams) 20 Flotation cells (per cell) 5 Electric motors(per motor) Cyclone for feldspar Cyclone for amber glass Tank for feldspar Tank for amber glass sand Feeder belt Feeder belt Dryer for feldspar Dryer for amber glass sand Product bin (feldspar) 35% of capacity of bin in I, prorated Product bin (amber glass sand) 90% of capacity of bin in I, prorated $0.53 Lube Tires Electricity Gas Total $0.43 $0.25 $0.09 $0.07 $0.04 $0.04 $0.06 $0.01 $0.02 $0.01 $0.03 $0.03 $0.08 $0.06 $0.22 $0.16 $0.03 $0.02 $0.03 $0.02 $0.39 $0.32 $0.63 $0.63 $0.51 $1.00 $1.75 $0.48 $1.69 $0.35 $0.12 $6.40 1 $0.24 $1.75 2 $0.03 $0.06 $0.14 $0.38 $0.05 $0.05 $0.63 $11.09 $13.06 $1.90 $41.83 $45.87 $2.38 $6.20 Subtotals $80.16 Total for flow diagram III (subtotals 1 + 2 + 5) $1 1 0.38 Maint. Parts labor Lube Tires Electricity Gas Total Flow diagram IV: Feldspar Tank (estimated 1 % of investment per year, see data common to all flow diagrams) $0.35 20 Flotation cells (per cell) $0.09 $0.07 $0.04 $0.12 $6.40 1 5 Electric motors (per motor) $0.04 $0.06 $0.01 $0.24 $1.75 2 Spirals (estimated 7% of investment based on ML 67) $1.75 Magnetic separator $0.34 $0.28 $0.16 $0.16 $0.94 Cyclone for feldspar $0.02 $0.01 $0.03 Feeder belt $0.03 $0.02 $0.05 Dryer for feldspar $0.39 $0.32 $0.63 $0.63 $11.09 $13.06 Product bin (feldspar), 35% of capacity of bin in I, prorated $2.76 Subtotal 6 Total for flow diagram IV (subtotals 1+2 + 6) $27.09 $57.31 ■ Total is for 20 cells. 2 Total is for 5 electric motors. linois State Geological Survey Illinois Minerals 122 19 Appendix C Net Present Value Analyses Table C1 Break-even price estimates using net present value method for the procedure described in flow diagram I. Selling price product mix ($/ton) Land purchase ($) Building cost ($) Equipment ($) Transport, installation, pumps, pipes, instrumentation ($) 10.02 100,000 Product breakdown (%) ($/ton) (tons/yr) 20,000 1,165,419 Sand 91 11.01 101,920 Loss 9 0.00 10,080 501,130 Year Total depreciable investment ($) 1 ,666,549 Hourly production (tons) Hourly operation/maintenance cost ($) Operation (hrs/day per person) Operation (days/yr) Annual throughput (tons), 2 shifts/day Total operating cost ($/yr), 2 shifts/day Hourly labor wage ($) Benefits (% of wages) Persons on wages (no.) Wages and benefits ($/yr) Foreman's salary ($/yr) Foreman's salary and benefits ($/yr) Total wages, salaries, benefits ($/yr) Working capital (3 months) ($) Interest on working capital at 9% ($) Real estate taxes ($) Depreciation (10-yr double declining balance) ($) Cumulative depreciation ($) Revenues ($/yr) Total expenses for the year ($) Net operating income ($) Net income after depreciation ($) Taxable income ($) Taxes paid ($) Net income after taxes ($) Cash flow after taxes, incl. deprec. ($) (1 ,666,549) Net present value (at 18% discount rate) 1,431 Required price schedule ($/ton) 1 ,666,549 35 85 1 ,333,239 1,066,591 853,273 682,619 546,095 436,876 349,501 8 200 112,000 270,944 13 51 10 314,080 279,072 287,444 296,068 304,950 314,098 323,521 333,227 48,000 72,480 386,560 398,157 410,102 422,405 435,077 448,129 461,573 475,420 280,535 288,951 288,951 288,951 288,951 288,951 288,951 288,951 34,790 35,834 36,909 38,016 39,157 40,332 41,542 42,788 2,400 2,472 2,546 2,623 2,701 2,782 2,866 2,952 333,310 266,648 213,318 170,655 136,524 109,219 87,375 69,900 333,310 599,958 813,276 983,931 1,120,454 1,229,673 1,317,048 1,386,949 1,122,139 1,144,582 1,167,474 1,190,823 1,214,640 1,238,932 1,263,711 1,288,985 814,694 715,535 737,001 759,1 1 1 781,885 805,341 829,501 854,386 307,445 429,047 430,472 431,712 432,755 433,591 434,210 434,599 (25,865) 162,399 217,154 261,057 296,231 324,372 346,834 364,699 162,399 217,154 261,057 296,231 324,372 346,834 364,699 64,960 86,862 104,423 118,492 129,749 138,734 145,879 97,439 130,292 156,634 177,739 194,623 208,101 218,819 307,445 364,087 343,61 1 327,289 314,262 303,842 295,476 288,719 10.02 10.22 10.42 10.63 10.84 11.06 11.28 11.51 Table C2 Break-even price estimates using the net present value method for the procedure described in flow diagram II. Selling price product mix ($/ton) 10.56 Land purchase ($) Building cost ($) 100,000 20,000 Product breakdown (%) ($/ton) (tons/yr) Equipment ($) 1,322,319 Foundry 'sand 44 1 1 .00 49,280 Transport, installation, pumps, Amber glass sand 47 12.17 52,640 pipes, instrumentation ($) 568,597 Losses 9 0.00 10,080 Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total depreciable investment ($) 1,890,916 1,890,916 1,512,733 1,210,186 968,149 774,519 619,615 495,692 396,554 Hourly production (tons) 35 Hourly operation/maintenance cost ($) 88 Operating (hrs/day per person) 8 Operation (days/yr) 200 Annual throughput (tons), 2 shifts/day 112,000 Total operating cost ($/yr), 2 shifts/day 281 ,600 290,048 298,749 307,712 316,943 326,452 336,245 346,332 Hourly labor wage ($) 13 Benefits (% of wages) 51 Persons on wages (no.) 10 Wages and benefits ($/yr) 314,080 Foreman's salary ($/yr) 48,000 Foreman's salary and benefits ($/yr) 72,480 Total wages, salaries, benefits ($/yr) 386,560 398,157 410,102 422,405 435,077 448,129 461,573 475,420 Working capital (3 months) ($) 295,677 304,548 304,548 304,548 304,548 304,548 304,548 304,548 Interest on working capital at 9% ($) 34,790 35,834 36,909 38,016 39,157 40,332 41,542 42,788 Real estate taxes ($) 2,400 2,472 2,546 2,623 2,701 2,782 2,866 2,952 Depreciation ( 1 0-yr double declining balance) ($) 378,183 302,547 242,037 193,630 154,904 123,923 99,138 79,311 Cumulative depreciation ($) 378,163 680,730 922,767 1 ,116,397 1,271,301 1,395,224 1 ,494,362 1 ,573,673 Revenues ($/yr) 1,182,709 1,206,363 1,230,490 1,255,100 1 ,280,202 1,305,806 1 ,331 ,922 1,358,561 Total expenses for the year ($) 825,350 726,51 1 748,306 770,755 793,878 817,694 842,225 867,492 Net operating income ($) 357,358 479,852 482,184 484,345 486,324 488,112 489,697 491,069 Net income after depreciation ($) (20,825) 177,305 240,147 290,715 331,420 364,189 390,558 411,758 Taxable income ($) 177,305 240,147 290,715 331,420 364,189 390,558 411,758 Taxes paid ($) 70,922 96,059 116,286 132,568 145,675 156,223 164,703 Net income after taxes ($) 106,383 144,088 174,429 198,852 218,513 234,335 247,055 Cash flow after taxes, incl. deprec. ($) (1,890,916) 357,358 408,930 386,125 368,059 353,756 342,436 333,474 326,365 Net present value (at 1 8% discount rate) 1,413 Required price schedule ($/ton) 10.56 10.77 10.99 11.21 11.43 11.66 11.89 12.13 20 linois Minerals 122 linois State Geological Survey VKBfc** 1 »&- 1 ITS© w GiOV SJfl*!* 1 Year 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 279,601 223,680 178,944 143,155 343,224 353,520 364,126 375,050 386,301 397,890 409,827 422,122 434,786 447,829 461,264 475,102 504,373 519,504 535,089 551,142 567,676 584,707 602,248 620,315 638,925 658,093 677,835 288,951 288,951 288,951 288,951 288,951 288,951 288,951 288,951 288,951 288,951 288,951 45,394 46,755 48,158 49,603 51,091 52,624 54,202 55,828 57,503 59,228 61,005 3,131 3,225 3,322 3,422 3,524 3,630 3,739 3,851 3,967 4,086 4,208 44,736 35,789 143,155 1,487,605 1 ,523,394 1,666,549 1,666,549 1,666,549 1 ,666,549 1 ,666,549 1,666,549 1 ,666,549 1,666,549 1,666.549 1,341,060 1,367,881 1,395,239 1,423,144 1,451,607 1,480,639 1,510,252 1,540,457 1,571,266 1 ,602,691 1,634,745 906,419 933,61 1 961 ,620 990,468 1,020,182 1,050,788 1,082,311 1,114,781 1,148,224 1,182,671 1,218,151 434,642 434,270 433,620 432,676 431 ,425 429,851 427,940 425,676 423,042 420,020 416,594 389,906 398,481 290,464 432,676 431,425 429,851 427,940 425,676 423,042 420,020 416,594 389,906 398,481 290,464 432,676 431,425 429,851 427,940 425,676 423,042 420,020 416,594 155,962 159,393 116,186 173,070 172,570 171,940 171,176 170,270 169,217 168,008 166,638 233,943 239,089 174,278 259,605 258,855 257,91 1 256,764 255,406 253,825 252,012 249,956 278,679 274,878 317,434 259,605 258,855 257,911 256,764 255,406 253,825 252,012 249,956 11.74 11.97 12.21 12.46 12.71 12.96 13.22 13.48 13.75 14.03 14.31 14.60 Year 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 253,794 203,036 162,428 367,424 378,447 389,800 401,494 413,539 425,945 438,724 451,885 465,442 479,405 493,787 489,683 504,373 519,504 535,089 551,142 567,676 584,707 602,248 620,315 638,925 658,093 677,835 304,548 304,548 304,548 304,548 304,548 304,548 304,548 304,548 304,548 304,548 304,548 304,548 44,071 45,394 46,755 48,158 49,603 51,091 52,624 54,202 55,828 57,503 59,228 61,005 3,040 3,131 3,225 3,322 3,422 3,524 3,630 3,739 3,851 3,967 4,086 4,208 63,449 50,759 40,607 162,428 1,637,122 1,687,881 1,728,488 1,890,916 1,890,916 1,890,916 1,890,916 1,890,916 1,890,916 1,890,916 1,890,916 1,890,916 1,385,732 1,413,446 1,441,715 1 ,470,550 1,499,961 1 ,529,960 1 ,560,559 1,591,770 1,623,606 1 ,656,078 1,689,199 1 ,722,983 893,517 920,322 947,932 976,370 1,005,661 1,035,831 1 ,066,906 1,098,913 1,131,880 1,165,837 1,200,812 1,236,836 492,215 493,124 493,783 494,180 494,300 494,129 493,653 492,857 491,725 490,241 488,388 486,147 428,766 442,365 453,176 331,751 494,300 494,129 493,653 492,857 491,725 490,241 488,388 486,147 428,766 442,365 453,176 331,751 494,300 494,129 493,653 492,857 491,725 490,241 488,388 486,147 171,507 176,946 181,271 132,701 197,720 197,652 197,461 197,143 196,690 196,096 195,355 194,459 257,260 265,419 271,906 199,051 296,580 296,477 296,192 295,714 295,035 294,145 293,033 291,688 320,708 316,178 312,513 361,479 296,580 296,477 296,192 295,714 295,035 294,145 293,033 291,688 12.37 12.62 12.87 13.13 13.39 13.66 13.93 14.21 14.50 14.79 15.08 15.38 linois State Geological Survey Illinois Minerals 122 2 1 Table C3 Break-even price estimates using net present value method for the procedures described in flow diagram III (scenario A) Selling price product mix ($/ton) Land purchase ($) Building cost ($) Equipment ($) Transport, installation.pumps, pipes, instrumentation ($) 12.89 100,000 20,000 1,684,649 724,399 Product breakdown (%) ($/ton) (tons/yr) Feldspar Amber glass sand Losses 17 72.5 10.5 41.69 8.00 0.00 19,040 81,200 11,760 Year Total depreciable investment ($) 2,409,048 Hourly production (tons) Hourly operation/maintenance cost ($) Operating (hrs/day per person) Operation (days/yr) Annual production (tons), 2 shifts/day Total operating cost ($/yr), 2 shifts/day Hourly labor wage ($) Benefits (% of wages) Persons on wages (no.) Wages and benefits ($/yr) Foreman's salary ($/yr) Foreman's salary and benefits ($/yr) Total wages, salaries, benefits ($/yr) Working capital (3 months) ($) Interest on working capital at 9% ($) Real estate taxes ($) Depreciation (10-yr double declining balance) ($) Cumulative depreciation ($) Revenues ($/yr) Total expenses for the year ($) Net operating income ($) Net income after depreciation ($) Taxable income ($) Taxes paid ($) Net income after taxes ($) Cash flow after taxes, incl. deprec. ($) (2,409,048) Net present value (at 18% discount rate) 318 Required price schedule ($/ton) 2,409,048 35 110 1,927,238 1,541,791 1,233,433 986,746 789,397 631,517 505,214 8 200 112,000 353,216 13 51 363,812 374,727 385,969 397,548 409,474 421,758 434,411 12 376,896 48,000 72,480 449,376 462,857 476,743 491,045 505,777 520,950 536,578 552,676 360,844 371,670 371,670 371,670 371,670 371,670 371,670 371,670 40,444 41,657 42,907 44,194 45,520 46,885 48,292 49,741 2,400 2,472 2,546 2,623 2,701 2,782 2,866 2,952 481,810 385,448 308,358 246,687 197,349 157,879 126,303 101,043 481,810 867,257 1,175,615 1,422,302 1,619,651 1,777,531 1,903,834 2,004,877 1 ,443,378 1,472,245 1,501,690 1,531,724 1,562,358 1,593,605 1,625,478 1,657,987 965,436 870,799 896,923 923,831 951,545 980,092 1 ,009,495 1,039,779 477,942 601,446 604,767 607,893 610,813 613,514 615,983 618,208 (3,868) 215,999 296,409 361,207 413,464 455,634 489,680 517,165 215,999 296,409 361,207 413,464 455,634 489,680 517,165 86,399 118,564 144,483 165,385 182,254 195,872 206,866 129,599 177,845 216,724 248,078 273,381 293,808 310,299 477,942 515,047 486,204 463,411 445,427 431,260 420,111 411,342 12.89 13.15 13.41 13.68 13.95 14.23 14.51 14.80 Table C4 Break-even price estimates using the net present value method for the procedure described in flow diagram III (scenario B) Selling price product mix ($/ton) 12.89 Land purchase ($) Building cost ($) Equipment ($) 100,000 20,000 1,684,649 Product breakdown (%) ($/ton) (tons/yr) Feldspar 21 36.40 23,520 Transport, installation, pumps, Amber glass sand 68.5 7.66 76,720 pipes, instrumentation ($) 724,399 Losses 10.5 0.00 11,760 Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total depreciable investment ($) Hourly production (tons) 2,409,048 2,409,048 35 1,927,238 1,541,791 1,233,433 986,746 789,397 631,517 505,214 Hourly operation/maintenance cost ($) 110 Operation (hr/day per person) 8 Operation (days/yr) 200 Annual production (tons), 2 shifts/day 112,000 Total operating cost ($/yr), 2 shifts/day Hourly labor wage ($) 353,216 13 363,812 374,727 385,969 397,548 409,474 421,758 434,411 Benefits (% of wages) 51 Persons on wages (no.) 12 Wages and benefits ($/yr) 376,896 Foreman's salary ($/yr) 48,000 Foreman's salary and benefits ($/yr) 72,480 Total wages, salaries, benefits ($/yr) 449,376 462,857 476,743 491,045 505,777 520,950 536,578 552,676 Working capital (3 months) ($) 360,951 371,779 371,779 371,779 371,779 371,779 371,779 371,779 Interest on working capital at 9% ($) 40,444 41,657 42,907 44,194 45,520 46,885 48,292 49,741 Real estate taxes ($) Depreciation (10-yr double declining balance) ($) 2,400 481,810 2,472 385,448 2,546 308,358 2,623 246,687 2,701 197,349 2,782 157,879 2,866 126,303 2,952 101,043 Cumulative depreciation ($) Revenues ($/yr) 481,810 867,257 1,175,615 1 ,422,302 1,619,651 1,777,531 1,903,834 2,004,877 1,443,803 1,472,679 1,502,133 1,532,176 1,562,819 1,594,075 1,625,957 1,658,476 Total expenses for the year ($) 965,436 870,799 896,923 923,831 951 ,545 980,092 1 ,009,495 1,039,779 Net operating income ($) 478,367 601,880 605,210 608,345 611,274 613,984 616,462 618,697 Net income after depreciation ($) Taxable income ($) Taxes paid ($) (3,442) 216,433 296,852 361,658 413,924 456,104 490,159 517,654 216,433 296,852 361 ,658 413,924 456,104 490,159 517,654 86,573 118,741 144,663 165,570 182,442 196,064 207,062 Net income after taxes ($) 129,860 178,111 216,995 248,355 273,663 294,095 310,592 Cash flow after taxes, incl. deprec. ($) Net present value (at 18% discount rate) (2,409,048) 1,720 478,367 515,307 486,469 463,682 445,704 431,542 420,399 411,635 Required price schedule ($/ton) 12.89 13.15 13.41 13.68 13.95 14.23 14.5 14.81 22 linois Minerals 122 linois State Geological Survey 404,171 10 323,337 11 258,670 12 206,936 13 14 Year 15 16 17 18 19 20 447,443 460,867 474,693 488,934 503,602 518,710 534,271 550,299 566,808 583,812 601,327 619,366 586,334 603,924 622,041 640,703 659,924 679,722 700,113 721,117 742,750 765,033 787,984 371,670 371,670 371,670 371,670 371,670 371,670 371,670 371,670 371,670 371 ,670 371,670 52,770 54,353 55,984 57,663 59,393 61,175 63,010 64,900 66,848 68,853 70,919 3,131 3,225 3,322 3,422 3,524 3,630 3,739 3,851 3,967 4,086 4,208 64,667 51,734 206,936 2,150,379 2,202,112 2,409,048 2,409,048 2,409,048 2,409,048 2,409,048 2,409,048 2,409,048 2,409,048 2,409,048 1 ,724,970 1 ,759,469 1 ,794,659 1,830,552 1,867,163 1 ,904,506 1,942,596 1,981,448 2,021,077 2,061,499 2,102,729 1,103,102 1,136,195 1,170,281 1 ,205,389 1,241,551 1,278,798 1,317,161 1 ,356,676 1 ,397,377 1,439,298 1,482,477 621,868 623,274 624,378 625,162 625,612 625,709 625,435 624,772 623,700 622,201 620,252 557,200 571 ,540 417,442 625,162 625,612 625,709 625,435 624,772 623,700 622,201 620,252 557,200 571,540 417,442 625,162 625,612 625,709 625,435 624,772 623,700 622,201 620,252 222,880 228,616 166,977 250,065 250,245 250,283 250,174 249,909 249,480 248,880 248,101 334,320 342,924 250,465 375,097 375,367 375,425 375,261 374,863 374,220 373,320 372,151 398,988 394,658 457,401 375,097 375,367 375,425 375,261 374,863 374,220 373,320 372,151 15.10 15.40 15.71 16.02 16.34 16.67 17.00 17.34 17.69 18.05 18.41 18.77 Year 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 323,337 258,670 206,936 460,867 474,693 488,934 503,602 518,710 534,271 550,299 566,808 583,812 601,327 619,366 586,334 603,924 622,041 640,703 659,924 679,722 700,113 721,117 742,750 765,033 787,984 371 ,779 371 ,779 371,779 371,779 371,779 371 ,779 371,779 371779 371,779 371 ,779 371,779 52,770 54,353 55,984 57,663 59,393 61,175 63,010 64,900 66,848 68,853 70,919 3,131 3,225 3,322 3,422 3,524 3,630 3,739 3,851 3,967 4,086 4,208 64,667 51 ,734 206,936 2,150,379 2,202,112 2,409,048 2,409,048 2,409,048 2,409,048 2,409,048 2,409,048 2,409,048 2,409,048 2,409,048 1,725,478 1,759,988 1,795,188 1,831,092 1,867,713 1,905,068 1,943,169 1,982,032 2,021,673 2,062,107 2,103,349 1,103,102 1,136,195 1,170,281 1 ,205,389 1,241,551 1,278,798 1,317,161 1 ,356,676 1 ,397,377 1 ,439,298 1,482,477 622,376 623,793 624,907 625,702 626,162 626,270 626,008 625,356 624,296 622,809 620,872 557,709 572,059 417,971 625,702 626,162 626,270 626,008 625,356 624,296 622,809 620,872 557,709 572,059 417,971 625,702 626,162 626,270 626,008 625,356 624,296 622,809 620,872 223,084 228,824 167,188 250,281 250,465 250,508 250,403 250,142 249,719 249,123 248,349 334,625 343,235 250,783 375,421 375,697 375,762 375,605 375,214 374,578 373,685 372,523 399,293 394,969 457,718 375,421 375,697 375,762 375,605 375,214 374,578 373,685 372,523 15.10 15.41 15.71 16.03 16.35 16.68 17.01 17.35 17.70 18.05 18.41 18.78 linois State Geological Survey linois Minerals 122 2 3 Table C5 Break-even price estimates using the net present value method for the procedure described in flow diagram III (scenario C). Selling price product mix ($/ton) Land purchase ($) Building cost ($) Equipment ($) Transport, installation, pumps, pipes, instrumentation ($) 12.89 100,000 20,000 1 ,684,649 724,399 Product breakdown (%) ($/ton) (tons/yr) Feldspar Amber glass sand Losses 15 74.5 10.5 46.18 16,800 8.00 83,440 0.00 11,760 Year 1 8 Total depreciable investment ($) 2,409,048 2,409,048 1,927,238 1,541,791 1,233,433 Hourly production (tons) 35 Hourly production (tons) 35 Operating (hr/day per person) 8 Operating (days/yr) 200 Annual production (tons), 2 shifts/day 112,000 Total operating cost ($/yr), 2 shifts/day 353,216 363,812 374,727 385,969 Hourly labor wage ($) 13 Benefits (% of wages) 51 Persons on wages (no.) 12 Wages and benefits ($/yr) 376,896 Foreman's salary ($/yr) 48,000 Foreman's salary and benefits ($/yr) 72,480 Total wages, salaries, benefits ($/yr) 449,376 462,857 476,743 491,045 Working capital (3 months) ($) 360,836 371,661 371,661 371,661 Interest on working capital at 9% ($) 40,444 41,657 42,907 44,194 Real estate taxes ($) 2,400 2,472 2,546 2,623 Depreciation (10-yrdouble declining balance) ($) 481,810 385,448 308,358 246,687 Cumulative depreciation ($) 481,810 867,257 1,175,615 1,422,302 Revenues ($/yr) 1,443,344 1,472,211 1,501,655 1,531,688 Total expenses for the year ($) 965,436 870,799 896,923 923,831 Net operating income ($) 477,908 601,412 604,732 607,858 Net income after depreciation ($) (3,901) 215,964 296,374 361,171 Taxable income ($) 215,964 296,374 361,171 Taxes paid ($) 86,386 118,550 144,468 Net income after taxes ($) 129,579 177,824 216,703 Cash flow after taxes, incl. deprec. ($) (2,409,048) 477,908 515,026 486,183 463,389 Net present value (at 1 8% discount rate) 208 Required price schedule ($/ton) 12.89 13.14 13.41 13.68 986,746 397,548 505,777 371,661 45,520 2,701 197,349 1,619,651 1,562,322 951,545 610,776 413,427 413,427 165,371 248,056 445,406 789,397 409,474 520,950 371,661 46,885 2,782 157,879 1,777,531 1 ,593,568 980,092 613,477 455,597 455,597 182,239 273,358 431 ,238 631,517 421,758 536,578 371,661 48,292 2,866 126,303 1,903,834 1 ,625,440 1,009,495 615,945 489,642 489,642 195,857 293,785 420,088 505,214 434,411 552,676 371,661 49,741 2,952 101,043 2,004,877 1,657,949 1 ,039,779 618,169 517,126 517,126 206,851 310,276 411,319 13.95 14.23 14.51 14.80 Table C6 Break-even price estimates using the net present value method for the procedure described in flow diagram IV (scenario A). Selling price product mix ($/ton) Land purchase ($) Building cost ($) Equipment ($) Transport, installation, pumps, pipes, instrumentation ($) 10.23 100,000 20,000 1,304,279 560,840 Product breakdown (%) ($/ton) (tons/yr) Feldspar Amber glass sand Losses 17 72.5 10.5 60.16 0.00 0.00 19,040 81,200 11,760 Year 1 Total depreciable investment ($)1, 865,1 19 1,865,119 1,492,095 1,193,676 954,941 763,953 Hourly production (tons) 35 Hourly operation/maintenance cost ($) 57 Operating (hr/day per person) 8 Operating (days/yr) 200 Annual production (tons), 2 shifts/day 112,000 Total operating cost ($/yr), 2 shifts/day 183,392 188,894 194,561 200,397 Hourly labor wage ($) 13 Benefits (% of wages) 51 Persons on wages (no.) 12 Wages and benefits ($/yr) 376,896 Foreman's salary ($/yr) 48,000 Foreman's salary and benefits ($/yr) 72,480 Total wages, salaries, benefits ($/yr) 449,376 462,857 476,743 491,045 Working capital (3 months) ($) 286,362 294,952 294,952 294,952 Interest on working capital at 9% ($) 40,444 41,657 42,907 44,194 Real estate taxes ($) 2,400 2,472 2,546 2,623 Depreciation (10-yrdouble declining balance) ($) 373,024 298,419 238,735 190,988 Cumulative depreciation ($) 373,024 671,443 910,178 1,101,166 Revenues ($/yr) 1,145,446 1,168,355 1,191,722 1,215,557 Total expenses for the year ($) 795,612 695,880 716,757 738,259 Net operating income ($) 349,835 472,475 474,966 477,298 Net income after depreciation ($) (23,189) 174,056 236,231 286,309 Taxable income ($) 174,056 236,231 286,309 Taxes paid ($) 69,622 94,492 114,524 Net income after taxes ($) 104,434 141,738 171,786 Cash flow after taxes, incl. deprec. ($) (1,865,119) 349,835 402,853 380,474 362,774 Net present value (at 18% discount rate) 121 Required price schedule ($/ton) 10.23 10.43 10.64 10.85 611,162 206,409 505,777 294,952 45,520 2,701 152,791 1,253,957 1,239,868 760,407 479,461 326,670 326,670 130,668 196,002 348,793 488,930 212,602 520,950 294,952 46,885 2,782 122,232 1,376,189 1 ,264,665 783,219 481 ,446 359,214 359,214 143,685 215,528 337,761 391,144 218,980 536,578 294,952 48,292 2,866 97,786 1,473,975 1,289,959 806,716 483,243 385,457 385,457 154,183 231,274 329,060 225,549 552,676 294,952 49,741 2,952 78,229 1,552,204 1,315,758 830,917 484,841 406,612 406,612 162,645 243,967 322,196 11.07 11.29 11.52 11.75 24 linois Minerals 122 linois State Geological Survey 404,171 10 323,337 11 258,670 12 206,936 13 14 Year 15 16 17 18 19 20 447,443 460.867 474,693 488,934 503,602 518,710 534,271 550,299 566,808 583,812 601,327 619,366 569,256 586,334 603,924 622,041 640,703 659,924 679,722 700,113 721,117 742,750 765,033 787,984 371,661 371,661 371,661 371,661 371 ,661 371,661 371,661 371,661 371,661 371,661 371,661 371,661 51,233 52,770 54,353 55,984 57,663 59,393 61,175 63,010 64,900 66,848 68,853 70,919 3,040 3,131 3,225 3,322 3,422 3,524 3,630 3,739 3,851 3,967 4,086 4,208 80,834 64,667 51,734 206,936 2,085,711 2,150,379 2,202,112 2,409,048 2,409,048 2,409,048 2,409,048 2,409,048 2,409,048 2,409,048 2,409,048 2,409,048 1,691,108 1,724,930 1 ,759,428 1,794,617 1 ,830,509 1,867,119 1,904,462 1,942,551 1,981,402 2,021,030 2,061,451 2,102,680 1,070,973 1,103,102 1,136,195 1,170,281 1 ,205,389 1,241,551 1,278,798 1,317,161 1 ,356,676 1 ,397,377 1 ,439,298 1,482,477 620,135 621,828 623,233 624,336 625,120 625,568 625,664 625,389 624,726 623,653 622,153 620,203 539,300 557,160 571,499 417,400 625,120 625,568 625,664 625,389 624,726 623,653 622,153 620,203 539,300 557,160 571,499 417,400 625,120 625,568 625,664 625,389 624,726 623,653 622,153 620,203 215,720 222,864 228,600 166,960 250,048 250,227 250,266 250,156 249,890 249,461 248,861 248,081 323,580 334,296 342,900 250,440 375,072 375,341 375,399 375,234 374,835 374,192 373,292 372,122 404,415 398,964 394,633 457,376 375,072 375,341 375,399 375,234 374,835 374,192 373,292 372,122 15.10 15.40 15.71 16.02 16.34 16.67 17.00 17.34 17.69 18.04 18.41 18.77 Year 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 312,915 250,332 200,266 160,212 232,315 239,285 246,464 253.857 261 ,473 269,317 277,397 285,719 294,290 303,119 312,213 321,579 569,256 586,334 603,924 622,041 640,703 659,924 679,722 700,113 721,117 742,750 765,033 787,984 294,952 294,952 294,952 294,952 294,952 294,952 294,952 294,952 294,952 294,952 294,952 294,952 51,233 52,770 54,353 55,984 57,663 59,393 61,175 63,010 64,900 66,848 68,853 70,919 3,040 3,131 3,225 3,322 3,422 3,524 3,630 3,739 3,851 3,967 4,086 4,208 1,614,787 1 ,664,853 1 ,704,906 1,865,119 1,865,119 1,865,119 1,865,119 1,865,119 1,865,119 1,865,119 1,865,119 1,865,119 1 ,342,073 1,368,914 1 ,396,293 1,424,219 1,452,703 1 ,481 ,757 1,511,392 1,541,620 1,572,452 1,603,901 1 ,635,980 1 ,668,699 855,845 881 ,520 907,966 935,205 963,261 992,159 1,021,924 1,052,581 1,084,159 1,116,683 1,150,184 1,184,689 486,228 487,394 488,327 489,014 489,442 489,598 489,469 489,039 488,294 487,218 485,796 484,010 423,645 437,328 448,274 328,801 489,442 489,598 489,469 489,039 488,294 487,218 485,796 484,010 423,645 437,328 448,274 328,801 489,442 489,598 489,469 489,039 488,294 487,218 485,796 484,010 169,458 174,931 179,310 131,521 195,777 195,839 195,787 195,616 195,318 194,887 194,318 193,604 254,187 262,397 268,964 197,281 293,665 293,759 293,681 293,423 292,976 292,331 291,477 290,406 316,770 312,463 309,017 357,493 293,665 293,759 293,681 293,423 292,976 292,331 291,477 290.406 62,583 50,066 40,053 160,212 (0) 11.98 12.22 12.47 12.72 12.97 13.23 13.49 13.76 14.04 14.32 14.61 14.90 linois State Geological Survey linois Minerals 122 2 5 Table C7 Break-even price estimates using the net present value method for the procedure described in flow diagram IV (scenario B). Selling price product mix ($/ton) Land purchase ($) Building cost ($) Equipment ($) Transport, installation, pumps, pipes, instrumentation ($) 10.23 100,000 20,000 1 ,304,279 560,840 Product breakdown (%) ($/ton) (tons/yr) Feldspar Amber Glass Sand Losses 15 74.5 10.5 68.20 0.00 0.00 16,800 83,440 11,760 Year 1 8 Total depreciable investment ($) 1,865,119 1,865,119 1,492,095 1,193,676 Hourly production (tons) 35 Hourly operation/maintenance cost ($) 57 Operating (hr/day per person) 8 Operating (days/yr) 200 Annual production (tons), 2 shifts/day 112,000 Total operating cost ($/yr), 2 shifts/day 183,392 188,894 194,561 Hou rly labor wage ($) 13 Benefits (% of wages) 51 Persons on wages (no.) 12 Wages and benefits ($/yr) 376,896 Foreman's salary ($/yr) 48,000 Foreman's salary and benefits ($/yr) 72,480 Total wages, salaries, benefits ($/yr) 449,376 462,857 476,743 Working capital (3 months) ($) 286,440 295,033 295,033 Interest on working capital at 9% ($) 40,444 41,657 42,907 Real estate taxes ($) 2,400 2,472 2,546 Depreciation (10-yr double declining balance) ($) 373,024 298,419 238,735 Cumulative depreciation ($) 373,024 671,443 910,178 Revenues ($/yr) 1,145,760 1,168,675 1,192,049 Total expenses for the year ($) 795,612 695,880 716,757 Net operating income ($) 350,148 472,795 475,292 Net income after depreciation ($) (22,876) 174,376 236,557 Taxable income ($) 174,376 236,557 Taxes paid ($) 69,750 94,623 Net income after taxes ($) 104,626 141,934 Cash flow after taxes, incl. deprec. ($) (1,865,119) 350,148 403,045 380,669 Net present value (at 18% discount rate) 1,154 Required price schedule ($/ton) 10.23 10.43 10.64 954,941 200,397 491,045 295,033 44,194 2,623 190,988 1,101,166 1,215,890 738,259 477,630 286,642 286,642 114,657 171,985 362,974 763,953 206,409 505,777 295,033 45,520 2,701 152,791 1 ,253,957 1,240,207 760,407 479,800 327,010 327,010 130,804 196,206 348,996 611,162 212,602 520,950 295,033 46,885 2,782 122,232 1,376,189 1,265,012 783,219 481,792 359,560 359,560 143,824 215,736 337,968 488,930 218,980 536,578 295,033 48,292 2,866 97,786 1,473,975 1,290,312 806,716 483,596 385,810 385,810 154,324 231,486 329,272 391,144 225,549 552,676 295,033 49,741 2,952 78,229 1 ,552,204 1,316,118 830,917 485,201 406,972 406,972 162,789 244,183 322,412 10.86 11.07 11.29 11.52 Table C8 Break-even price estimates using the net present value method for the procedure described in flow diagram IV (scenario C). Selling price product mix ($/ton) 10.23 Land purchase ($) Building cost ($) 100,000 Product breakdown (%) ($/ton) (tons/yr) 20,000 Equipment ($) 1,304,279 Feldspar 15 53.30 27,509 Transport, installation, pumps, Amber glass sand 74.5 3.00 83,440 pipes, instrumentation ($) 560,840 Losses 10.5 0.00 11,760 Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total depreciable investment ($) 1,865,119 1,865,119 1,492,095 1,193,676 954,941 763,953 611,162 488,930 391,144 Hourly production (tons) 35 Hourly operation/maintenance cost ($) 57 Operating (hr/day per person) 8 Operating (days/yr) 200 Annual production (tons), 2 shifts/day 112,000 Total operating cost ($/yr), 2 shifts/day 183,392 188,894 194,561 200,397 206,409 212,602 218,980 225,549 Hourly labor wage ($) 13 Benefits (% of wages) 51 Persons on wages (no.) 12 Wages and benefits ($/yr)) 376,896 Foreman's salary ($/yr) 48,000 Foreman's salary and benefits ($/yr) 72,480 Total wages, salaries, benefits ($/yr) 449,376 462,857 476,743 491,045 505,777 520,950 536,578 552,676 Working capital (3 months) ($) 286,440 295,033 295,033 295,033 295,033 295,033 295,033 295,033 Interest on working capital at 9% ($) 40,444 41,657 42,907 44,194 45,520 46,885 48,292 49,741 Real estate taxes ($) 2,400 2,472 2,546 2,623 2,701 2,782 2,866 2,952 Depreciation (10-yr double declining balance) ($) 373,024 298,419 238,735 190,988 152,791 122,232 97,786 78,229 Cumulative depreciation ($) 373,024 671,443 910,178 1,101,166 1,253,957 1,376,189 1 ,473,975 1,552,204 Revenues ($/yr) 1,145,760 1,168,675 1,192,049 1,215,890 1,240,207 1,265,012 1,290,312 1,316,118 Total expenses for the year ($) 795,612 695,880 716,757 738,259 760,407 783,219 806,716 830,917 Net operating income ($) 350,148 472,795 475,292 477,630 479,800 481,792 483,596 485,201 Net income after depreciation ($) (22,876) 174,376 236,557 286,642 327,010 359,560 385,810 406,972 Taxable income ($) 174,376 236,557 286,642 327,010 359,560 385,810 406,972 Taxes paid ($) 69,750 94,623 114,657 130,804 143,824 154,324 162,789 Net income after taxes ($) 104,626 141,934 171,985 196,206 215,736 231,486 244,183 Cash flow after taxes, incl. deprec. ($) (1,865,119) 350,148 403,045 380,669 362,974 348,996 337,968 329,272 322,412 Net present value (at 18% discount rate) 1,154 Required price schedule ($/ton) 10.23 10.43 10.64 10.86 11.07 11.29 11.52 11.75 26 linois Minerals 122 Illinois State Geological Survey 312,915 10 250,332 11 200,266 12 160,212 13 14 Year 15 16 17 18 19 20 232,315 239,285 246,464 253,857 261,473 269,317 277,397 285,719 294,290 303,119 312,213 321,579 569,256 586,334 603,924 622,041 640,703 659,924 679,722 700,113 721,117 742,750 765,033 787,984 295,033 295,033 295,033 295,033 295,033 295,033 295,033 295,033 295,033 295,033 295,033 295,033 51,233 52,770 54,353 55,984 57,663 59,393 61,175 63,010 64,900 66,848 68,853 70,919 3,040 3,131 3,225 3,322 3,422 3,524 3,630 3,739 3,851 3,967 4,086 4,208 62,583 50,066 40,053 160,212 (0) 1,614,787 1,664,853 1,704,906 1,865,119 1,865,119 1,865,119 1,865,119 1,865,119 1,865,119 1,865,119 1,865,119 1,865,119 1,342,440 1,369,289 1 ,396,675 1,424,609 1,453,101 1,482,163 1,511,806 1,542,042 1 ,572,883 1 ,604,341 1 ,636,427 1,669,156 486,596 487,769 488,709 489,404 489,840 490,004 489,882 489,461 488,724 487,657 486,243 484,467 424,013 437,703 448,656 329,191 489,840 490,004 489,882 489,461 488,724 487,657 486,243 484,467 424,013 437,703 448,656 329,191 489,840 490,004 489,882 489,461 488,724 487,657 486,243 484,467 169,605 175,081 179,462 131,677 195,936 196,002 195,953 195,784 195,490 195,063 194,497 193,787 254,408 262,622 269,194 197,515 293,904 294,002 293,929 293,677 293,235 292,594 291,746 290,680 316,991 312,688 309,247 357,727 293,904 294,002 293,929 293,677 293,235 292,594 291,746 290,680 855,845 881,520 907,966 935,205 963,261 992,159 1,021,924 1 ,052,581 1,084,159 1,116,683 1,150,184 1,184,689 11.99 12.23 12.47 12.72 12.97 13.23 13.50 13.77 14.04 14.32 14.61 14.90 Year 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 312,915 250,332 200,266 160,212 232,315 239,285 246,464 253,857 261 ,473 269,317 277,397 285,719 294,290 303,119 312,213 321,579 569,256 586,334 603,924 622,041 640,703 659,924 679,722 700,113 721,117 742,750 765,033 787,984 295,033 295,033 295,033 295,033 295,033 295,033 295,033 295,033 295,033 295,033 295,033 295,033 51,233 52,770 54,353 55,984 57,663 59,393 61,175 63,010 64,900 66,848 68,853 70,919 3,040 3,131 3,225 3,322 3,422 3,524 3,630 3,739 3,851 3,967 4,086 4,208 62,583 50,066 40,053 160,212 (0) 1,614,787 1,664,853 1 ,704,906 1,865,119 1,865,119 1,865,119 1,865,119 1,865,119 1,865,119 1,865,119 1,865,119 1,865,119 1,342,440 1,369,289 1 ,396,675 1 ,424,609 1,453,101 1,482,163 1,511,806 1,542,042 1,572,883 1 ,604,341 1 ,636,427 1,669,156 855,845 881,520 907,966 935,205 963,261 992,159 1,021,924 1,052,581 1,084,159 1,116,683 1,150,184 1,184,689 486,596 487,769 488,709 489,404 489,840 490,004 489,882 489,461 488,724 487,657 486,243 484,467 424,013 437,703 448,656 329,191 489,840 490,004 489,882 489,461 488,724 487,657 486,243 484,467 424,013 437,703 448,656 329,191 489,840 490,004 489,882 489,461 488,724 487,657 486,243 484,467 169,605 175,081 179,462 131,677 195,936 196,002 195,953 195,784 195,490 195,063 194,497 193,787 254,408 262,622 269,194 197,515 293,904 294,002 293,929 293,677 293,235 292,594 291,746 290,680 316,991 312,688 309,247 357,727 293,904 294,002 293,929 293,677 293,235 292,594 291,746 290,680 11.99 12.23 12.47 12.72 12.97 13.23 13.50 13.77 14.04 14.32 14.61 14.90 linois State Geological Survey linois Minerals 122 2 7 Table C9 Break-even price estimates using net present value for the procedure described in flow diagram IV (scenario D). Selling price product mix ($/ton) 10.23 Land purchase ($) Building cost ($) 100,000 Product breakdown (%) ($/ton) (tons/yr) 20,000 Equipment ($) 1 ,304,279 Feldspar 17 47.37 19,040 Transport, installation, pumps, Amber < jlass sand 72.5 3.00 81,200 pipes, instrumentation ($) 560,840 Losses 10.5 0.00 11,760 Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total depreciable investment ($) 1,865,119 1,865,119 1,492,095 1,193,676 954,941 763,953 611,162 488,930 391,144 Hourly production (tons) 35 Hourly operation/maintenance cost ($) 57 Operating (hr/day per person) 8 Operating (days/yr) 200 Annual production (tons), 2 shifts/day 112,000 Total operating cost ($/yr), 2 shifts/day 183,392 188,894 194,561 200,397 206,409 212,602 218,980 225,549 Hourly labor wage ($) 13 Benefits (% of wages) 51 Persons on wages (no.) 12 Wages and benefits ($/yr) 376,896 Foreman's salary ($/yr) 48,000 Foreman's salary and benefits ($/yr) 72,480 Total wages, salaries, benefits ($/yr) 449,376 462,857 476,743 491,045 505,777 520,950 536,578 552,676 Working capital (3 months) ($) 286,381 294,973 294,973 294,973 294,973 294,973 294,973 294,973 Interest on working capital at 9% ($) 40,444 41,657 42,907 44,194 45,520 46,885 48,292 49,741 Real estate taxes ($) 2,400 2,472 2,546 2,623 2,701 2,782 2,866 2,952 Depreciation ( 1 0-y r double declining balance) ($) 373,024 298,419 238,735 190,988 152,791 122,232 97,786 78,229 Cumulative depreciation ($) 373,024 671,443 910,178 1,101,166 1 ,253,957 1,376,189 1,473,975 1,552,204 Revenues ($/yr) 1,145,525 1,168,435 1,191,804 1,215,640 1,239,953 1 ,264,752 1 ,290,047 1,315,848 Total expenses for the year ($) 795,612 695,880 716,757 738,259 760,407 783,219 806,716 830,917 Net operating income ($) 349,913 472,555 475,047 477,381 479,546 481,533 483,331 484,931 Net income after depreciation ($) (23,111) 174,136 236,312 286,393 326,755 359,300 385,545 406,702 Taxable income ($) 174,136 236,312 286,393 326,755 359,300 385,545 406,702 Taxes paid ($) 69,654 94,525 114,557 130,702 143,720 154,218 162,681 Net income after taxes ($) 104,482 141,787 171,836 196,053 215,580 231,327 244,021 Cash flow after taxes, incl. deprec. ($) (1,865,119) 349,913 402,901 380,523 362,824 348,844 337,813 329,113 322,250 Net present value (at 1 8% discount rate) 379 Required price schedule ($/ton) 10.23 10.43 10.64 10.85 11.07 11.29 11.52 11.75 Selling price product mix ($/ton) 10.23 Land purchase ($) 100,000 Product breakdown (%) ($/ton) (tons/yr) Building cost ($) 20,000 Equipment ($) 1 ,684,649 Feldspar 15 35.40 31,500 Transport, installation, pumps, Amber glass sand 74.5 I 3.60 156,450 pipes, instrumentation ($) 724,399 Losses 10.5 I 3.00 22,050 Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total depreciable investment ($) 2,409,048 2,409,048 1,927,238 1,541,791 1,233,433 986,746 789,397 631,517 505,214 Hourly production (tons) 35 Hourly operation/maintenance cost ($) 110 Operating (hr/day per person) 8 Operating (days/yr) 250 Annual production (tons), 3 shifts/day 210,000 Total operating cost ($/yr), 3 shifts/day 662,280 682,148 702,613 723,691 745,402 767,764 790,797 814,521 Hourly labor wage ($) 13 Benefits (% of wages) 51 Persons on wages (no.) 18 Wages and benefits ($/yr) 706,680 Foreman's salary ($/yr) 48,000 Foreman's salary and benefits ($/yr) 72,480 Total wages, salaries, benefits ($/yr) 779,160 802,535 826,61 1 851,409 876,951 903,260 930,358 958,269 Working capital (3 months) ($) 536,918 553,025 553,025 553,025 553,025 553,025 553,025 553,025 Interest on working capital at 9% ($) 70,124 72,228 74,395 76,627 78,926 81,293 83,732 86,244 Real estate taxes ($) 2,400 2,472 2,546 2,623 2,701 2,782 2,866 2,952 Depreciation ( 1 0-yr double declining balance) ($) 481,810 385,448 308,358 246,687 197,349 157,879 126,303 101,043 Cumulative depreciation ($) 481,810 867,257 1,175,615 1,422,302 1,619,651 1,777,531 1 ,903,834 2,004,877 Revenues ($/yr) 2,147,670 2,190,623 2,234,436 2,279,125 2,324,707 2,371,201 2,418,625 2,466,998 Total expenses for the year ($) 1,633,964 1,559,383 1,606,165 1 ,654,350 1,703,980 1,755,100 1 ,807,753 1,861,985 Net operating income ($) 513,706 631 ,240 628,271 624,775 620,727 616,102 610,873 605,012 Net income after depreciation ($) 31 ,896 245,792 319,913 378,088 423,378 458,222 484,569 503,970 Taxable income ($) 31,896 245,792 319,913 378,088 423,378 458,222 484,569 503,970 Taxes paid ($) 12,758 98,317 127,965 151,235 169,351 183,289 193,828 201,588 Net income after taxes ($) 19,138 147,475 191,948 226,853 254,027 274,933 290,741 302,382 Cash flow after taxes, incl. deprec. ($) (2,409,048) 500,947 532,923 500,306 473,539 451,376 432,813 417,045 403,425 Net present value (at 18% discount rate) 1,453 Required price schedule ($/ton) 10.23 10.43 10.64 10.85 11.07 11.29 11.52 11.75 28 linois Minerals 122 linois State Geological Survey 312,915 10 250,332 11 200,266 12 160,212 13 14 Year 15 16 17 18 19 20 232,315 239,285 246,464 253,857 261,473 269,317 277,397 285,719 294,290 303,119 312,213 321,579 569,256 586,334 603,924 622,041 640,703 659,924 679,722 700,113 721,117 742,750 765,033 787,984 294,973 294,973 294,973 294,973 294,973 294,973 294,973 294,973 294,973 294,973 294,973 294,973 51,233 52,770 54,353 55,984 57,663 59,393 61,175 63,010 64,900 66,848 68,853 70,919 3,040 3,131 3,225 3,322 3,422 3,524 3,630 3,739 3,851 3,967 4,086 4,208 62,583 50,066 40,053 160,212 (0) 1,614,787 1,664,853 1,704,906 1,865,119 1,865,119 1,865,119 1,865,119 1,865,119 1,865,119 1,865,119 1,865,119 1,865,119 1,342,165 1 ,369,008 1 ,396,388 1,424,316 1 ,452,802 1,481,858 1,511,496 1,541,726 1,572,560 1,604,011 1,636,091 1,668,813 855,845 881,520 907,966 935,205 963,261 992,159 1,021,924 1,052,581 1,084,159 1,116,683 1,150,184 1,184,689 486,320 487,488 488,423 489,111 489,541 489,700 489,572 489,144 488,401 487,328 485,908 484,124 423,737 437,422 448,369 328,899 489,541 489,700 489,572 489,144 488,401 487,328 485,908 484,124 423,737 437,422 448,369 328,899 489,541 489,700 489,572 489,144 488,401 487,328 485,908 484,124 169,495 174,969 179,348 131,560 195,817 195,880 195,829 195,658 195,361 194,931 194,363 193,650 254,242 262,453 269,022 197,339 293,725 293,820 293,743 293,487 293,041 292,397 291 ,545 290,474 316,825 312,519 309,075 357,552 293,725 293,820 293,743 293,487 293,041 292,397 291,545 290,474 11.98 12.22 12.47 12.72 12.97 13.23 13.50 13.77 14.04 14.32 14.61 14.90 404,171 10 11 323,337 258,670 12 206,936 13 Year 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 838,956 864,125 890,049 916,750 944,253 972,581 1,001,758 1,031,811 1,062,765 1,094,648 1,127,487 1,161,312 987,017 1,016,627 1,047,126 1 ,078,540 1,110,896 1,144,223 1,178,549 1,213,906 1,250,323 1 ,287,833 1 ,326,468 1,366,262 553,025 553,025 553,025 553,025 553,025 553,025 553,025 553,025 553,025 553,025 553,025 553,025 88,831 91 ,496 94,241 97,069 99,981 102,980 106,069 109,252 112,529 115,905 119,382 122,964 3,040 3,131 3,225 3,322 3,422 3,524 3,630 3,739 3,851 3,967 4,086 4,208 80,834 64,667 51,734 206,936 2,085,711 2,150,379 2,202,112 2,409,048 2,409,048 2,409,048 2,409,048 2,409,048 2,409,048 2,409,048 2,409,048 2,409,048 2,085,71 1 2,150,379 2,202,112 2,409,048 2,409,048 2,409,048 2,409,048 2,409,048 2,409,048 2,409,048 2,409,048 2,409,048 1,917,845 1,975,380 2,034,642 2,095,681 2,158,551 2,223,308 2,290,007 2,358,707 2,429,468 2,502,352 2,577,423 2,654,746 598,493 591,284 583,356 574,677 565,214 554,932 543,798 531 ,774 518,822 504,904 489,979 474,004 517,659 526,617 531,622 367,741 565,214 554,932 543,798 531,774 518,822 504,904 489,979 474,004 517,659 526,617 531 ,622 367,741 565,214 554,932 543,798 531,774 518,822 504,904 489,979 474,004 207,063 210,647 212,649 147,096 226,085 221,973 217,519 212,710 207,529 201 ,962 195,991 189,602 310,595 315,970 318,973 220,645 339,128 332,959 326,279 319,064 311,293 302,942 293,987 284,402 391 ,429 380,638 370,707 427,580 339,128 332,959 326,279 319,064 311,293 302,942 293,987 284,402 11.98 12.22 12.47 12.72 12.97 13.23 13.49 13.76 14.04 14.32 14.61 14.90 linois State Geological Survey linois Minerals 122 2 9 > IXI Z> CO _l < O Is ? to |co t= O CO CD O) > CD >n00 CO c O) CO Q. E CO co O