Case Study
Iracore 7500 versus Bare Carbon Steel
Current Wear Model – Regular Tailings
Iracore-lined pipe wears better and lasts longer than any other pipe, providing long-term cost advantages for our customers. This lifecycle cost comparison outlines a case study used to review the value of Iracore-lined pipe compared to bare carbon steel piping (30″ x 0.75″ wt.) and view the impact of the factors in the model.
As this case demonstrates, using our lined piping results in significant increases in value for operations and a dramatic reduction in labor hours required on site. The initial cost of Iracore lined pipe is recovered after 2 years of operations, as the original carbon steel pipe requires frequent maintenance and replacement.
Iracore 7500 versus Carbon Steel
Product Focus
Key Assumptions
The lifecycle comparison is based on both systems’ field experience. Simplifications have been made to provide an overall comparison of each system’s relative impact and value.
Total Cost of System
When considering the value of systems with different expected service life, lifecycle costs over a common period are used rather than the initial capital cost alone. In this case, the expected life of carbon steel piping results in repeated replacements over 10 years. In addition, the carbon steel piping system requires 5x the frequency of rotation and inspection work compared to our Iracore-lined pipe. The following cases will consider different expected life ratios to show the sensitivity of overall cost and other impacts.
Even with a higher upfront capital cost for Iracore-lined pipe, the cumulative savings compared to carbon steel are around $121 million over 10 years. Due to the durability of our product and the lower frequency of maintenance and replacement, labor hours on-site were reduced by 75% over the pipe’s lifecycle.
10 Year Cost Comparison
Decompostion Net Present Value (NPV)
Key Assumptions
Labor availability and safety of the workforce onsite are ongoing challenges. Hiring and maintaining an experienced workforce to maintain slurry lines fluctuates depending on the market and has become more difficult.
The Iracore system requires a significant reduction of labor hours and a smaller number of crews compared to carbon steel piping simply because the maintenance and replacement activities are less frequent over the same period (10 years).
Statistically, reducing field hours decreases reportable injuries for a given reportable injury rate (i.e., per 1,000 hours). Fewer hours required in safety-sensitive roles would result in fewer injuries.
A smaller scope of work should result in a more manageable workforce, further adding to these gains. As previously stated, Iracore lined pipe has resulted in a 75% reduction in labor hours on site to maintain tailings and slurry lines.
Labor Impact - Iracore versus Carbon Steel
