<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="https://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Transport Research International Documentation (TRID)</title>
    <link>https://trid.trb.org/</link>
    <atom:link href="https://trid.trb.org/Record/RSS?s=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" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <description></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <copyright>Copyright © 2026. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.</copyright>
    <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
    <managingEditor>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</managingEditor>
    <webMaster>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</webMaster>
    
    <item>
      <title>AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF AN OIL SHALE, NAHCOLITE, DAWSONITE COMPLEX IN COLORADO, OPTION III, CIRCA 1971</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/10909</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Option III concerns mining and processing a nahcolite deposit in the Piceance Creek basin, Colorado, plus an underlying measure of oil shale containing 14.8 percent nahcolite and 11.6 percent dawsonite by weight, and yielding 37 gallons of shale oil per ton.  Principal products are soda ash, alumina, and shale oil.  Coke, sulfur, and ammonia are evaluated as byproducts.  A two-level shaft mining operation, retorting, partial refining, and a minerals processing plant requires a capital investment of $636,973,000 in 1971 dollars to process 8,000 tons per calendar day of white nahcolite ore and 60,000 tons per calendar day of mineral-bearing oil shale.  An income of $257,599,600 based on 1971 prices requires $151,373,400 annual operating expenditures including labor, materials, maintenance, taxes, insurance, overhead, and depreciation. The discounted cash flow rate of return is 14.45 percent based on a weighted average depreciation life of 14.155 years.  This option differs from Option II in depth of the shale bed mined and anlaysis of the deposit.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Apr 1974 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/10909</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>INDUSTRIAL DEMAND FOR SULFUR AND ALTERNATIVE INPUTS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/10822</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Historical time series show that industrial uses for sulfur exhibit diverse trends and significant flucturations.  A plausible reason for this behavior of industrial demand is the presence of alternative inputs used to replace sulfur. On the other hand, sulfur may replace existing inputs used by respective industries because of a more favorable relative price or because of its superior qualities.  This study makes use of regression analysis to examine direct demand and cross-demand for sulfur and alternative inputs. The major industries that currently choose between sulfur and alternative inputs include the following:  Chemicals, inorganic pigments, pulping processes, nonferrous ores leaching, and iron and steel pickling.  Some of these industries show an increasing demand for sulfur while others show a declining demand.  By examining and evaluating direct price elasticities and cross price elasticities, degree of substitution can be detected.  Proper evaluation of the statistical results lends background support for action programs for the sulfur industry to promote uses where alternative inputs are at an economic disadvantages, and withdrawal from those uses where alternative inputs have a pronounced economic advantage.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Apr 1973 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/10822</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>