Understanding the demand for Green Steel, page-262

Pathways-to-Industrial-Decarbonisation-report-February-2023-Australian-Industry-ETI.pdf (energytransitionsinitiative.org)



"Australia has two primary iron ore types; hematite-goethite and magnetite. Hematite-goethite ore is a naturally highergrade ore, with iron content typically between 56 and 62 per cent. It requires little processing before it is shipped as lump and fines for use in blast furnaces and constitutes 96 per cent of Australia’s current iron ore exports. Magnetite is naturally a lower grade ore (25–40 per cent iron), but can be processed to raise the iron content, then be subsequently agglomerated and indurated into pellets suitable for use in steelmaking. Magnetite constitutes only 4 per cent of Australia’s current iron ore exports. Australia’s hematite-goethite iron ore is NOT readily suitable for use in H2 DRI-EAF, the most advanced green steel technology"

On page 69 it goes on to say that one of the recommendations to accelerate development and demonstration to ensure Australia is at the forefront of emerging low carbon industrial technologies is to " "Investigate iron ore compatibility with green steelmaking. This should prioritise efforts and collaborations to develop methods of processing hematite-goethite ore or expanding current magnetite output"And then if you looked at page 165, it goes on to say: "Three strategies should be investigated to ensure the ongoing viability of iron ore exports in light of this potential technology shift. Firstly, investment in research and development of advanced beneficiation and pre-treatment of hematite-goethite ore to enable compatibility with H2 DRI-EAF. Secondly, green steelmaking such as DRI-Melter-BOF and electrolysis technologies, which are more compatible with hematite-goethite iron ore. Thirdly, prioritisation of the development of magnetite resources to diversify Australia’s iron ore production"

We know that the iron content of DRI pellets should be as high as possible and preferably >67%. We have 69.7%. And this is where it gets interesting, because I know that as part of BF/BOF efficiency programs, to improve efficiency and/or decrease production losses in different ways
1) Optimizing the BF burden mix by maximizing the iron content in raw materialsto decrease the usage of coal as a reductant = higher purity = less slag = less energy used/carbon.
2) Increasing the use offuel injection through, for example, pulverized coal injection (PCI), natural gas, plastics, biomass, or hydrogen (as an additional reagent on top), OR
3) Using coke oven gas in the BF as an energy source, just to name some of the options.

These processes may have the potential to decrease carbon dioxide emissions without eliminating them, but do not offer fully carbon-neutral steel production.

If we can somehow diversify our product range to cater for ALL 3 routes = we are in good hands. Sure we have DR pellets for the DRI-EAF + DRI-Melter-BOF. but we will ALSO be able to cater for the blast furnace route. I hope the optimization study will show that we can cater for all 3. If that is so, we are winning.

Just my 2 cents.

Btw: Mark Eames was cited in this report! WOOT