This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
“With the advent of horizontal drilling, there were


two changes,” Jablonski said. “They [began using] so much sand there was not enough of that sand for their purposes, so they are learning to use 50-70-100 mesh particles, which are major constituents of metalcasting sand. The other thing is…those finer sands actually work better than the coarser sand.” Which means metalcasters could be in for a rough


patch, whether they have heard about the tightening supply or not. “[Sand suppliers] are taking care of their good long-


term customers like us,” said Rob Peaslee, president and co-owner of Manitowoc Grey Iron Foundry, Manitowoc, Wis., U.S.A. “But if I said I needed to double my order, I’m guessing I would get a polite no.” Mary Wolfe, process manager for Deeter Foundry Inc.,


Lincoln, Neb., U.S.A., said she has already seen changes in her facility’s silica supply and heard similar concerns from other metalcasters. “We have had a lot of variation in the percentage found


on the different screens,” she said. A representative for Deeter’s sand supplier told Wolfe


the company is in the midst of an expansion to accommo- date new energy market business, and it is having difficulty delivering a consistent product during the project.


The Supplier’s Dilemma For suppliers of silica sand, the development of the


fracking industry is a potential boom. Frack sand costs more to refine and produce than other types of sand, mean- ing processors can charge more for it, and customers are willing to pay more, as well. “On the supply side, there are [mining] companies


building sand plants,” Jablonksi said. “But anyone build- ing a sand plant or expanding, they are targeting that expansion for the frack industry. It is easier to justify, if you have increased revenue to defer.” Some sand companies have therefore decided to


adjust their process to produce more frack sand and less metalcasting sand. In addition to affecting the pricing in all sand-consuming industries, this can lead to the production of metalcasting sand that is slightly differ- ent than the material to which buyers are accustomed and result in casting defects. “People have approached us saying what’s now available


from their producer isn’t the same,” Jablonski said. Compounding the problem is the fact that metalcast-


ers are some of the lowest men on the totem pole when it comes to the sand supply. “Another thing to note is that the glass industry,


which remains the largest consumer of industrial sand, is also being affected by the shortage induced by the frack industry, putting even more pressure on the supply side,” Jablonski said. But some in the industry wonder how long the good


times will roll for frackers—will oil and gas harvesters always be using sand-based slurries to suck the earth dry? “Te sand deposits at this point are not really an issue,”


杂质的尺寸在20-30-40目之间的砂子。 “随着水平钻井技术的出现,带来了两个变化,”


Jablonski说。“他们使用大量的砂子以至于没有足够 砂子供给他们开采使用,因此他们开始尝试使用50-70- 100目这些更细的砂子,而这些尺寸范围的砂子正是铸 造用砂的主要构成。 另一个变化是..这些更细的砂子实 际上比粗糙的砂子更好用。“


这意味着铸造厂可能免不了经历一段困难时期,不管 他们是否听闻有关砂子会紧缩供应。


“砂子供应商们正在考虑如何满足像我们这样的长期 优质客户,”美国威斯康辛州马尼特沃克Manitowoc Grey Iron Foundry公司的董事长兼合伙人Rob Pea- slee说,“但是,如果我说我需要双倍的供货量,我猜 我会得到一个礼貌的回绝。” 美国内布拉斯加州林肯市的Deeter Foundry 公司负 责工艺的Mary Wolfe经理说,她已经观察到了在她所 在工厂石英砂供应发生的变化,并且也听闻了其它铸造 厂表达的类似的担忧。


“我们已经在不同的屏幕上发现了很多的百分比变 化,”她说 。 Deeter公司的砂供应商代理人告诉Wolfe,他们公司 正在扩张以适应新能源市场业务的需求,因此他们很难


保证在项目的整个过程中稳定地提供产品。 供应商左右为难


对于石英砂供应商而言,水压致裂行业的发展是一 个潜在的繁荣。水压致裂砂相比其它类型的砂子粒度更 细,生产成本也更高。这意味着砂子加工企业可以要价 更高,当然,客户也愿意为此会付出更多钱。 “从供给方面来看,也会有更多的企业建造砂


场,”Jablonksi说, “任何人建造砂厂或扩大规模, 他们的目标瞄准的是水压致裂行业的扩张。如果你利润 不可能短期增加,这就比较容易理解了。 ” 因此,一些砂生产公司决定调整他们的生产工序,以 生产更多的水压致裂用砂和少的铸造用砂。这样,除了 会影响砂子消耗行业的砂定价外,这可能会导致生产出 的型砂材料与传统工艺略有不同,从而会导致生产处铸 件的缺陷。


“又一些人曾向我们表示现在向生产商购买的与之前 不一样了,” Jablonski说 。


而当谈到砂供应时,铸造厂往往没有多少话语权,这 样的一个事实导致问题进一步加剧。


“另一个值得注意的是作为目前来说工业用砂最大 的消耗行业的玻璃行业,同样也正被由水压致裂行业诱 发的砂供应短缺所影响,使得供应方将承受更大的压 力,” Jablonski说 。


但一些业内人士想知道水压致裂的好时光将会持续多 久--石油和天然气开采机将一直使用含有砂的泥浆直到


28 | FOUNDRY-PLANET.COM | MODERN CASTING | CHINA FOUNDRY ASSOCIATION Winter 2012


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68