Status and Trends: Profile 

of Structural Panels in the 

United States and Canada 

Henry Spelter

David McKeever

Matthew Alderman

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Forest

Products

Laboratory

Research

Paper

FPL–RP–636
September 2006

Spelter, Henry; McKeever, David; Alderman, Matthew. 2006. Status and 

Trends: Profile of Structural Panels in the United States and Canada. 

Research Note FPL-RP-636. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 41 p.

A limited number of free copies of this publication are available to the 

public from the Forest Products Laboratory, One Gifford Pinchot Drive, 

Madison, WI 53726–2398. This publication is also available online at 

www.fpl.fs.fed.us. Laboratory publications are sent to hundreds of libraries 

in the United States and elsewhere.

The Forest Products Laboratory is maintained in cooperation with the 

University of Wisconsin. 

The USDA prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the 

basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, 

sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part 

of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. 

(Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities 

who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET 

Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250–9410, or call (800) 795–3272 

(voice) or (202) 720–6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider 

and employer.

Abstract

This paper provides an overview of the North American 

(United States and Canada) structural panel industry, which 

consists of softwood plywood and oriented strandboard 

(OSB). The paper describes the evolution of overall capacities, effective capacity utilization, and manufacturing costs. 

As part of that, it describes changes in industry operating 

parameters such as wood use and yield, employee productivity, adhesives usage, and energy consumption. The major 

end-use markets for these commodities and market share 

trends are described as they evolved over time. Trends in 

foreign trade are also covered. Softwood plywood capacity peaked in 1989 at around 24 million m3 (27 billion ft2) 

and has since dropped to 16 million m3 (18 billion ft2). By 

contrast, OSB capacity has grown almost continuously and 

reached 23 million m3 (26 billion ft2) in 2006, on its way 

to about 26 million (29 billion ft2) by 2008. Productivity as measured by output capacity per employee is about 

four times higher in an OSB plant than in a plywood mill. 

Since its inception, OSB product recovery (yield) has also 

improved by about 15%. These are two major reasons why 

OSB manufacturing costs are about 25% lower than those 

for plywood. Given OSB’s higher profitability, most of the 

investment in the sector has been directed into that branch. 

The cyclical nature of structural panel demand combined 

with the tug and pull between plywood and OSB capacities have led to considerable cyclical volatility in prices and 

profits. Over the past 20 years, OSB has largely taken over 

the sheathing portion of the market for structural panels. 

Overall, the construction of new buildings and their upkeep 

and improvement are the largest market for structural panels 

in the United States. In 2003, about 23.3 million m3

(26.3 billion ft2) of structural panels were used for sheathing 

and exterior siding in these markets. The use of plywood 

for sheathing in walls is now rare, somewhat higher in 

roofs, and highest in flooring. To adapt to the competition, 

plywood manufacturing has evolved toward more industrial 

uses and higher grades of panels where its appearance and 

properties give it an edge that offsets its higher costs. Based 

on analysis of existing market shares of other materials, 

it is theoretically possible that structural panel consumption could be increased by about 40% over current levels. 

This would have represented an additional 9.5 million m3

(10.7 billion ft2) of structural panel consumption in 2003. 

Imports are an increasing part of supply, with Brazil, Chile, 

and Canada supplying growing amounts of plywood while 

Brazil and Europe augment major import flows of OSB 

from Canada.

Keywords: structural panel industry capacity, oriented 

strandboard, plywood, employment, concentration ratios, 

resin use, wood use, historical evolution, end-use demand.

Units of Measure

This report is international in scope. Accordingly, we have 

used the International System (SI) of units. However, we 

often accompany these with customary American measures 

to facilitate understanding by those not accustomed to SI 

units. All dollar amounts are U.S. currency. Measurements 

in billions (109) also use the U.S. system. All square feet are 

3/8-in. basis.

Some conversions used in this report are as follows:

Multiply by To get

Volume

1,000 ft3 28.315 m3

m3 35.315 ft3

1,000 ft2, 3/8-in. basis 0.885 m3

m3 1.130 1,000 ft2 (3/8-in.)

gal 3.785 L

L 0.264 gal

Area

1,000 ft2 93 m2

1 m2 10.75 ft2

Equivalence of volume of natural gas with energy

1,000 ft3 1.08 GJ

GJ 0.926 1,000 ft3

1,000 ft3 102 therms

therm 0.098 ft3

Mass

lb 0.453 kg

kg 2.2 lb

Length

in. 2.54 cm

cm 0.394 in.

	 	
Contents 

Page

Introduction...........................................................................1 

Capacity and Cost Data.........................................................1 

OSB.......................................................................................2

 Capacity ...........................................................................2 

 Industry Concentration.....................................................3

 Employment.....................................................................3 

 Wood Use.........................................................................4 

 Wax and Resin Use ..........................................................5 

 Energy Use.......................................................................5 

 Equipment Suppliers........................................................6 

 Costs and Profitability......................................................6 

Plywood ................................................................................8

 Capacity ...........................................................................8 

 Industry Concentration.....................................................9 

 Employment.....................................................................9 

 Wood Use.........................................................................9 

 Resin Use .......................................................................10 

 Energy Use.....................................................................10 

 Costs and Profitability....................................................10

Structural Panels .................................................................11

 Trade ..............................................................................11 

 Margin–Capacity Use Relationships..............................12

End Use...............................................................................14

 Life Cycle Context.........................................................14 

 Structural Panel Demand ...............................................14 

 New Residential Construction .......................................15

 Residential Repair and Remodeling...............................17

 Nonresidential Buildings ...............................................19 

 Total Potential for Structural Panels ..............................21

Conclusions and Implications.............................................21

Literature Cited ...................................................................22

Appendix—U.S. and Canadian Structural Panel Plants by 

Region................................................................................ 23

Status and Trends: Profile of Structural 

Panels in the United States and Canada 

Henry Spelter, Economist

David McKeever, Research Forester

Matthew Alderman, Economics Assistant

Forest Producs Laboratory, Madison, Wisconsin

Introduction

The term “structural panels” refers to oriented strandboard 

(OSB) and softwood plywood. Their main use is in lightweight construction where they provide the rigid envelope 

that ties the other structural elements of wood-framed buildings together. High strength, stiffness, and resistance to 

moisture are the main performance criteria. 

Originally, this function was performed by 12-in.-wide 

boards, but when moisture-resistant phenolic resins became 

available in the 1930s, 4-ft-wide plywood panels made of 

sheets of veneer became more economical. In turn, plywood 

was challenged by “strandboard” technology that began to 

appear around the late 1970s. Since then, the market has 

been dominated by the interplay of these two products. 

Generally, OSB panels are intrinsically less costly to make. 

Plywood has the advantage of familiarity and appearance together with some properties, thickness swelling in particular, 

that are considered superior by many. The tension between 

the lower costs of OSB versus the perceived advantage of 

plywood has contributed to big cyclical swings in structural 

panel markets. This process typically unfolds when prices 

are high and investment is mostly funneled into the more 

profitable OSB segment. The ensuing capacity surge often 

exceeds immediate needs, causing a glut that drives prices 

down. Plywood prices follow to stay in the game, but its 

higher manufacturing costs lead to mounting losses that 

eventually cause reductions in capacity. The reduced supply 

then restores producer pricing power and the cycle repeats. 

Illustrative are the yearly changes over the past 20 years in 

overall structural panel capacity in which gains are mostly 

the result of new OSB plants, whereas losses are predominantly the result of plywood mill closures (Fig. 1). 

This report explores the structure and evolution of this dynamic sector of the forest products industry and describes its 

capacities, input requirements, ownerships, end-use markets, 

and comparative economics. 

Capacity and Cost Data

Capacity and cost-related data in this report were obtained 

from diverse sources. 

Capacity and employment data were obtained from company announcements and trade association releases augmented 

by periodic surveys conducted by the authors. 

Production and trade data are those reported by the trade 

group APA–The Engineered Wood Association (Adair 

2004). 

Information on equipment attributes was obtained from vendors, again augmented by personal contacts and published 

trade reports.

Wood, adhesives, and other input usages were obtained from 

published trade reports and articles as well as through inquiries with vendors and producers. 

We devised a model to track mill costs, the elements of 

which were obtained from the above sources of information together with prices obtained from chemical and timber 

market reports and data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics 

on prevailing wages. We validated our resulting cost estimates by reference to partial information on costs available 

from public company financial reports. For revenue modeling, we used prices reported by trade price reporting services (Random Lengths Publications, Inc. 2005; Madison’s 

Canadian Lumber Reporter 2004; RISI 2005). 

Profit margins were derivatives of the above two data 

streams. Accordingly, our estimates of profit margins are 

analytical constructs whose intent is to illustrate underlying 

trends in profitability. They shadow, but are not necessarily 

the same as, profit margins reported in financial filings of 

any particular company or industry. 

Figure 1—Yearly changes in North American structural 

panel capacity, 1983–2006.
2

Research Note FPL–RN–0300

OSB

Capacity

The Appendix lists North American (United States and 

Canada only) structural panel plant locations by capacity 

(in 1,000 m3) and ownership from 1990 to the present.

Oriented strandboard capacities are calculated on a basis of 

year-round operation except for major holidays, meaning 

approximately 360 days per year. This omits downtime for 

scheduled and random curtailments due to maintenance, 

breakdowns, installations of new equipment, log shortages, 

and damage due to occasional hurricanes or fires. 

To determine the capacity-reducing effects of such normal 

and unavoidable stoppages, we analyzed downtime notices 

from January 2003 to January 2006, as relayed by the information broker Random Lengths. This period is representative of a normal operating environment because interruptions due to adverse market conditions were negligible. 

To further narrow the scope of curtailments to those that 

have their basis in purely technical causes, we also omitted 

closures tangentially related to market conditions, such as 

extended halts (lasting over 2 weeks) due to strikes or log 

shortages. We counted a total of 90 stoppages for maintenance, the average number of days for which was 6.1. These 

occurred at 43 sites. Therefore, the norm per plant was 

2.1 stoppages over a 25-month period, or one stoppage per 

plant per year of 6.1 days duration. 

Similarly, we found 30 instances of stoppages due to other 

random causes, averaging 7.6 days at 17 sites. It is problematic to translate this into an industry average because not 

all companies announce these events, and so the proper numerator is unknown. As an approximation, we took the 

49 plants that reported curtailment for any reason as the basis of the stoppage rate, which comes to 0.6 per site over 

25 months, or 0.3 per plant per year lasting an average of 

7.6 days. We can normalize this to 2.3 days (7.6 × 0.3) lost 

per plant per year for the industry as a whole. 

Based on these calculations, normal scheduled and unscheduled stoppages take effective capacity down to approximately 97.6% of the nameplate number (1 – (6.1 + 2.3)/360), a 

value that applies to the annual rate only because downtime 

for maintenance tends to be seasonal around the Christmas

and New Year holidays. 

A further depressing influence on capacity estimates is the 

entry of new plants. Such mills undergo a shakedown period 

that can last for over a year during which technical problems are sorted out. Although we have truncated nameplate 

capacities for startup years to account for a partial year of 

operation, we had no way of knowing each mill’s startup 

experience and thus its initial effective capacity. This phenomenon was a more notable drag on apparent capacity 

utilization in the industry’s early years when each new plant 

added a sizeable increment to total output capacity.

Figure 2 reviews historical rates of production as a percentage of capacity, or capacity utilization. As the industry 

matured, production tended to approach the full nameplate 

level, actually achieving it in 1993. From 1992 to 2005, the 

capacity utilization rate averaged 94.8%, close to but less 

than our calculated effective capacity of 97.6%. This was 

due mostly to cyclicality evidenced in operating rates as low 

as 88.5% in the economically challenging year of 1996 and 

again at 91.8% in 2001. In each instance, these troughs were 

followed by crests. In 2005 the rate rose to 96.5%, or essentially full use of effective capacity, given that our estimates 

of effective capacity contain some statistical uncertainty.1

Capacity growth initially stems from the addition of new 

plants, but another important source is technology change 

that enables the work rate of existing capital stock to increase (“capacity creep”). 

The occurrence of this is best understood if we picture 

an OSB plant as a series of linked process centers, any of 

which can act as the overall bottleneck. However, in general 

plants are designed around their presses whose capabilities 

are the primary indicators of plant capacities. Besides its 

physical dimensions, the productivity of a press is determined by the press cycle defined as the amount of time it 

takes to process each batch of panels. This consists of dead 

time during which the press is loaded or unloaded and effective time during which heat and pressure are applied. Mat 

moisture content, press pressure and temperature, rates of 

press closure and decompression, and adhesive formulations 

are among the variables that have to be optimized to obtain 

the shortest press cycle time consistent with minimum required properties and low percentage of degrade. 

When “structural particleboards” first appeared, press times 

in excess of 5 min were often the norm. This subsequently 

1We note that typical industry budgeting figures are based on 

350 days per year.

Figure 2—North American OSB capacity utilization, 

1980–2005.

Research Paper FPL–RP–636
Status and Trends: Profile of Structural Panels in the United States and Canada

 3

has been reduced, as can be approximated2 by comparing 

each plant’s evolving nameplate capacity with its press capacity per load, which in most cases stayed constant. From 

more than 5 min at the beginning, average contemporary 

total press cycles have dropped to approximately 3 min 

(Fig. 3). Press dwell times are lower still for continuous 

presses (just over 1 min). 

Such advances in adhesive technology as faster curing 

agents and quicker reacting resins have contributed to 

shorter press cycles. Heat transfer has also been accelerated 

through optimization of mat moisture content gradients and 

in some cases by spraying water onto mat surfaces. Dead 

times too have been shortened through improvements in 

press-loading mechanics. 

Faster speeds in continuous presses are due in part to the 

absence of dead time. More recently, press times have shortened about 30% to 50% by acceleration of heat transfer into 

2Capacity/press load (m3) × min/h × h/day × days/year divided by 

effective capacity (m3)/year.

the mat through the use of “pre-heaters,” in which a mixture 

of hot air and steam injected into the mat raises its temperature to a precise target just prior to pressing (Schletz 2005).

These trends have been a notable feature of OSB technological development, but should not necessarily be extrapolated indefinitely because of limits on how quickly resins 

cure, how fast heat can be transmitted to mats, and how long 

press cycles have to be maintained to prevent high internal 

steam pressure from blowing panels apart. Figure 4 illustrates a recent gradual slowing in the rate of change in press 

times. Yearly reductions that averaged 2.5% to 3.5% in the 

mid-1990s have decelerated to just over 2% in the 2000s 

and are likely to slow to 1% by 2008, based on the most recent press dimensions and plant capacities. Steam injection 

may yet be applied to batch presses, but to date has mainly 

been used where exceptionally thick panels are made. Preheaters are harder to apply to batch presses because the 

variable waiting times before pressing would likely cause 

resin pre-cure problems. Barring new developments in these 

areas, overall capacity gains in the future are more likely to 

be linked either to new plants or to physical enlargements of 

existing presses. 

Industry Concentration

The high investment required for an OSB plant favors ownership by well-capitalized companies. This has resulted in a 

high level of ownership concentration. In 1995, we counted 

16 firms (some of which were co-owned) owning one or 

more mills. Among these, the top 6 accounted for 75% of 

the total. In 2006, the number of firms fell to 15 and the 

share of the top 6 had risen to 78% (Table 1). The increase 

stemmed from mergers and from shedding of OSB plants by 

some downsizing companies. The 2006 concentration ratio 

would be about 2% higher if the capacities of co-owned 

mills were assigned to their parent firms.

Employment

The properties of OSB are primarily determined by process 

variables rather than the grade of the wood. The relative homogeneity of OSB flakes and their small size simplifies sorting and handling, lending itself to automation and the need 

for fewer workers. On average, an OSB plant is staffed by 

about 130 to 140 people. This has increased little over the 

years despite the greater expansion in capacity of individual 

plants. As a consequence, the output per employee has tripled, from less than 1 million ft2 a year (0.885 thousand m3) 

to 3 million ft2 (2.7 thousand m3) (Fig. 5). Total employment 

rose from just under 1,000 in 1977 to over 9,400 in 2006. 

The average number of employees per OSB plant was 136 

in 2006 compared with 125 in 1977. The plants with the 

highest output per employee are found in British Columbia 

and Alberta, whereas the older, smaller plants in the northern United States have the lowest.

Figure 3—Average OSB batch press times, ±1 standard 

deviation, 1980–2007.

Figure 4—Annual decrease in OSB press times, 

1980–2008.
4

Wood Use

We investigated wood use by analyzing company announcements regarding wood input. We also conducted surveys 

in 1997 and 2005. Finally, we analyzed data from the 2004 

survey of wood purchase receipts reported by the Forest 

Resources Association (2000–2004). From these we gathered the data displayed in Figure 6, showing cubic meters of 

wood input per cubic meter of board output.

The variability among mills is large. This partly reflects ambiguity in the data, which were given in a variety of units. 

Green tons and cords are most common in the United States 

while cubic meters are standard in Canada. Placing them on 

a common basis required assumptions about wood moisture 

content, specific gravity, log size, and bark content that may 

not match a given mill’s circumstances. Though this increases variability between plants, the errors should largely 

cancel for the group, leaving a good indication of average 

levels. Taken as a whole, the data show generally higher 

yields for OSB made from denser pine wood, due to lower 

compaction ratios, and a downward trend consistent with 

known advances in several process elements.

Wood yield efficiency is given by volume in–volume out 

factors at the various stages of processing, which can be 

summarized as

 Yield = (LT × FI × DD × CO × PT × SA × DG)

where

 LT is (1 – fractional loss to log trim and kerf)

 FI (1 – fractional loss to fines)

 DD (1 – fractional loss to drying)

 CO (1 – fractional loss to panel compaction)

 PT (1 – fractional loss to panel trim)

 SA (1 – fractional loss to sanding)

 DG (1 – fractional loss to degrade and rejects)

Refinements of OSB technology have boosted yields in 

most of these areas. Log trim and kerf losses declined when 

long-log ring and disk flakers displaced 3-ft-wide disk flakers that were the norm among early mills. Ring flakers also 

tend to produce fewer fines.

Heat conditioning higher density hardwoods and frozen logs 

improved yields of uniform flakes. It also reduced resin 

use and permitted lower density boards. Dull knives are 

Table 1—OSB capacity ownership

Capacitya (×1,000 m3)

Firm 1995 2000 2006

Louisiana Pacific 3,9151 6,4401 6,5051

Weyerhaeuser 1,5032 3,5532 4,1302

Georgia Pacific 1,1963 1,8453 2,6955

Potlatch 1,0824 1,115 –

Norbord 8155 1,5904 3,7433

Huber 7216 1,2505 2,1206

Grant 570 1,2206 1,280

International Paper 545 955 –

McMillan Bloedel 370 – –

Ainsworth 350 935 2,9254

Forex 305 – –

Martco 260 300 453

Langboard 215 211 450

Malette 200 – –

Longlac

Tolko

Slocan

Canfor

Peace Valleyb

Voyageur

Willamette

Tembec

 160

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

 545

 470

–

–

 400

 350

 200

–

1520

–

635

620

–

–

–

Kruger

Footnerb

Jolina Capital

Total

–

–

–

12,367

 160

 30

–

21,569

170

810

270

28,276

Top 6 share 75% 74% 78%

aSuperscripts 1 to 6 indicate the rating of the company 

 in the particular year.

bJoint venture

Figure 5—Average annual capacity per employee in OSB 

plants, 1980–2006.

Figure 6—Cubic meters of wood input per cubic meter of 

OSB output, 1977–2007. Blue diamonds signify northern 

(aspen) mills, red dots southern (mostly pine) mills.

Research Paper FPL–RP–636
 5

another cause of fines, and ampere meters attached to flakers 

that measure the current being drawn provided a timely way 

to monitor and replace dull knives. 

In flake drying, the predominant three-pass dryers employ 

very high temperatures. This volatilizes some of the material and promotes breakage. Single pass and conveyor dryers 

used by a growing number of plants allow lower temperatures, thus reducing the risk of fire, flake breakage, and volatilization, along with lowering volatile organic compound 

(VOC) emissions. 

For acceptable bonding between flakes, OSB panels need 

to be compressed beyond the original density of the wood, 

which results in volumetric loss in yield. However, longer 

flakes are stronger and stiffer than short flakes. Initially, 

flake lengths were in the 6- to 9-cm (2.5- to 3.5-in.) range to 

facilitate flake passage through the three-pass dryer environment. Around the 1980s, however, mills adopting singlepass and conveyor dryers began making 15-cm (6-in.) 

flakes. Longer flakes increase panel strength-to-weight ratios, allowing lower panel densities and reduced wood use.

Less panel trim has also contributed to wood savings. Continuous presses effectively eliminate trim at two of the four 

panel edges. Also, as batch presses were made bigger, the 

ratio of the periphery to the finished panel size decreased. 

We can track the impact of these changes by calculating the 

ratio of a 9-cm-wide (3.5-in.-wide) peripheral band to finished panel size from known press dimensions (Fig. 7).

These assorted improvements support the downward trend 

in wood use observed in our sample, and averaging data 

over several discrete intervals provides a clearer view 

(Fig. 8). On the whole, the wood input to panel output ratio 

declined from nearly 2 in 1977 to 1985 to 1.65 in 2000 to 

2007, about a 15% improvement in yield.

Wax and Resin Use

The third major class of inputs to OSB production is wax 

and resins. Wax helps the resin adhere to the wood and improves water repellency. It is normally applied in a concentration of 1% to 1.5% by oven-dried (OD) weight (Table 2).

Most OSB plants in North America use phenol formaldehyde (PF) for adhesive. The industry initially used wide 

wafers, but their large shape tended to block the even spread 

of resin. To improve coverage efficiency, the resin was applied in powdered form so that some loose powder would 

eventually spread to surfaces that were initially shielded as 

the wafers tumbled in the blender. When narrower strands 

came into use, the necessity for this declined, and liquid PF 

became predominant because liquid resin is cheaper. Some 

plants still use powdered resin, usually in a range of 1.9% 

to 2.7% by OD weight, with an average in our sample of 

2.3%. The dosage of liquid PF varies according to the grade 

of the board, but around 3.5% by OD weight is the norm for 

sheathing. 

Isocyanate resin is used for premium-grade boards such as 

I-beam webs and flooring. Isocyanate cures faster and tolerates higher mat moistures, so it is also used in some cases to 

speed production of sheathing. However, its cost per weight 

is higher and it has a tendency to stick to the press platens. 

Therefore, it is mainly used in the core layers of boards. Its 

application rate is about 2% per OD weight for normal commodity type products, but much higher for specialty items 

such as siding. It accounts for about 5% of overall resin use. 

Energy Use

The large amount of residue in the form of dried fines, trim, 

and wet bark creates a ready source of fuel. One way bark 

residues have been employed is to pyrolyze them in a 

Figure 7—Composite trim recovery factor for all OSB 

plants, 1977–2007.

Figure 8—Composite OSB industry wood input–product 

output ratio, 1977–2007.

Status and Trends: Profile of Structural Panels in the United States and Canada

Table 2—Average OSB resin and wax consumption 

Average consumption of weight 

percentage of 

oven-dried wood

 Core

Resin type Samples Face PFa PMDIb

Powder PF 9 2.30 2.35 –

Liquid PF 11 3.82 3.66 2.28

Wax 20 1.14 1.14 –

aPF, phenol formaldehyde.

bPMDI, polymeric diisocyanate.
6

low-oxygen environment, creating synthetic gas, which then 

provides fuel for a secondary combustion chamber to supply heat to the conditioning vats and the presses. Dry fines 

and trim are mostly burned directly to provide heat for the 

dryers. Accordingly, most OSB plants were self-sufficient 

for heat energy, using natural gas or heating oil mainly as 

backup. Electricity to power equipment and liquid fuels to 

run rolling stock were the main purchased energy needs.

This changed around 1990 with tightened U.S. emission 

standards, which made it necessary to install energy intensive regenerative thermal oxidizers (RTOs) to incinerate 

VOCs and other emissions. In our 1997 survey, we 

found the use rate of natural gas to be 1.3 GJ/m3

(1.1 thousand ft3/1,000 ft2) of output (Table 3) in the mills 

that employed such equipment. Where such equipment was 

not used, gas purchases were insignificant. Electricity use 

was also slightly higher among the first group than among 

the second at 170 compared with 160 kWh/m3

(150 versus 141 kWh/1,000 ft2).

In our 2005 survey, the gas-use rate had abated to under 

0.7 GJ/m3 (560 ft3/1,000 ft2). This decrease likely reflects 

the use of lower energy consuming regenerative catalytic 

oxidizers (RCOs). In locations using other means of emissions control, natural gas use continued to be minimal.

Propane and diesel usage were about the same for 

mills and not a large cost at 1 and 1.3 L/m3

(0.24 and 0.30 gal/1,000 ft2) of output.

Equipment Suppliers

Equipment to the OSB industry is provided by a large 

number of vendors, but the number of suppliers for specific 

machinery is concentrated. These companies are also the 

source for much of the engineering research and development that has enabled the industry to grow. Table 4 contains 

a partial listing of some key suppliers for four equipment 

types. The list is not a count of all individual pieces of machinery but just the predominant vendor at a site.

Costs and Profitability

In rough order of importance, wood, adhesives, labor, energy, and wax constitute the main direct OSB manufacturing costs. General overhead and capital depreciation are 

the fixed components. Since OSB is priced mostly in U.S. 

dollars, Canadian firms have exchange rates as an added 

variable to consider when comparing revenues or costs with 

their U.S. counterparts. Table 5 contains historical unit costs 

of these items. 

Labor costs include direct wages and indirect peripheral 

expenses. They reflect underlying wage increases of about 

3.7%/year and growth in indirect benefits of about 7%/year 

over the period. These are partly offset by yearly productivity gains of about 2.3%, consistent with recent average 

industry gains for existing plants.

Wood costs are based on delivered prices of aspen in Minnesota. For cost calculations, we employed a usage rate of 

1.8 m3/m3 of board, or a recovery rate of about 55%. 

Resin and wax costs reflect a resin use rate of 23 kg/m3, or 

3.6% by OD weight, and 8 kg/m3 of wax, or 1.2% by OD 

weight. Prices are based on costs of phenol and formaldehyde as reported in Chemical Market Reporter, a price reporting publication.

Energy usage is based on an operating VOC incinerator unit 

at about 0.9 GJ/m3 (0.75 thousand ft3/1,000 ft2).

These prices and usage rates were used to generate the costs 

shown in Table 6 for a 390 thousand m3/yr (440 million ft2) 

benchmark mill located in the northcentral United States.

Revenues were based on 7/16-in. northcentral sheathing 

prices, adjusted for discounts and product mix and converted to a 3/8-in. basis. The difference between these two 

data streams yields estimates of pre-tax margins. When 

compared with a sample of reports from company annual 

financial filings, these cost and revenue estimates show a 

standard deviation of 2.5% from those numbers. 

The volatility in margins characteristic of OSB over much 

of its existence is evident in Table 6 for which the revenue 

side is mainly responsible. This stems partly from the industry structure, which has relatively few but high-volume 

plants, involving major capital investments in excess of U.S. 

$100 million. As such they are designed to run around 

the clock, seven days a week, which leaves little room to 

expand output once a plant is fully operational. With little 

slack capacity and up to a 2-year lag in getting a new plant 

built, the ability to meet demand surges is limited. Especially over the 2003 to 2005 period, the result was a relatively 

fine balance between highly inelastic supply and similarly 

inelastic demand. When demand got ahead of supply, staggering price increases ensued followed eventually by equally apocalyptic collapses once the disequilibrium reversed.

Table 3—Average OSB energy use, 1997 and 2005

RTO/RCOa No RTO/RCO

Year Samples Energy use Samples Energy use All mills

Natural gas (ft3/1,000 ft2)

1997 5 1.10 8 0.06

2005 8 0.56 4 0.06

Electricity (kWh/1,000 ft2)

1997 5 150 8 130

2005 8 141 4 119

Diesel (gal/1,000 ft2)

1997 13 0.24

Propane (gal/1,000 ft2)

1997 13 0.30

aRTO, regenerative thermal oxidizers; RCO, regenerative 

catalytic oxidizers.

Research Paper FPL–RP–636
 7

Table 4—North American OSB equipment suppliers, by period 

of installation

Installation 

period No. machinery sites by supplier

Flakers

CAE Pallmann Hombak Others Unknown

77–84 17 0 4 10

85–94 18 2 0 2

95–07 26 4 0 7

Total 61 6 4 0 19

Formers

Siempelkamp Schenk CMC Tex Others Unknown

77–84 2 5 0 4 20

85–94 7 7 0 8

95–07 12 7 1 17

Total 21 19 1 4 45

Dryers

MEC Büttner Koch Others Unknown

77–84 6 0 0 5 19

85–94 8 2 1 5 6

95–07 6 8 5 4 15

Total 20 10 6 14 40

Presses

Siempelkamp Dieffenbacher W I W Others Unknown

77–84 11 3 4 2 11

85–94 7 4 3 0 8

95–07 15 4 3 1 14

Total 33 11 10 3 33

Table 5—Approximate costs of various OSB manufacturing inputs for a 

northcentral U.S. location, 2000–2006

Cost (US$/unit)

Cost item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Wood (m3) 30 28 28 32 36 46 44

 (cord) 68 65 64 72 81 104 100

Labor (h) 21.7 22.7 23.9 25.1 26.2 27.5 28.3

Liq PF (kg) 0.79 0.83 0.82 1.15 1.17 1.39 1.26

 (lb) 0.36 0.38 0.37 0.52 0.53 0.63 0.57

Wax (kg) 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.87 0.88 1.01 0.97

 (lb) 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.4 0.4 0.46 0.44

Nat gas (GJ) 4.1 4.9 3.8 5.3 6.1 7.6 7.4

 (thousand ft3) 4.5 5.2 4.1 5.8 6.6 8.2 8.0

Electricity (kWh) 0.036 0.043 0.045 0.055 0.058 0.060 0.062

Diesel (L) 0.26 0.25 0.23 0.28 0.35 0.48 0.53

 (gal) 1.00 0.95 0.88 1.05 1.35 1.84 2.00

Status and Trends: Profile of Structural Panels in the United States and Canada
8

Costs were relatively stable until 2003 when rising energy 

costs, and to a lesser extent, wood prices began to affect 

operations. Total costs increased by approximately a third 

between 2002 and 2005. Figure 9 contrasts estimates for 

eastern Canada and the southeast United States with the 

northcentral benchmark, using similar input parameters 

wedded to local wood and labor rates and adjusted to U.S. 

dollars in the case of Ontario. The substantial rise in Ontario 

costs reflects in large part the influence of the latter variable. 

The relative rise of northcentral to southeastern costs reflects the more rapid escalation of wood prices in the Great 

Lake states. The generally rising trends shared by all regions 

mainly mirror the inflation in energy and petroleum-derived 

adhesives.

As 2006 unfolds, it is evident that the current cycle is well 

into its downward phase. This reflects diminished prospects 

for demand on the one hand, as rising interest rates are beginning to slow house building, and increased supply on the 

other, as capacity, motivated by the previous high margins, 

begins to be brought on line.

Plywood

Capacity

Since the advent of OSB, plywood capacity has been in decline (Fig. 10). Plywood has traditionally depended on larger and higher grade logs. Beginning in the 1970s, declining 

availability and rising cost of such logs undercut plywood’s 

economics. Faster lathe charging and peeling have lowered 

the limits on acceptable bolt sizes. Newer mills built largely 

in the South have adapted to smaller logs, enabling capacity 

there to hold up better. However, even that region’s capacity 

has begun to fade due to pressures from OSB and imports. 

Among the regions we studied, the Canadian branch of the 

industry has had the most success in maintaining its capacity 

base. 

Perhaps more surprising than its decline has been plywood’s 

resilience. One helpful development in that regard was the 

growth of engineered laminated veneer lumber (LVL) assembled from sheets of veneer. This allowed a plywood 

operation to extract more value from a portion of its veneers 

than would have been possible from panel production alone. 

However, this diverts a portion of the wood from going 

through the entire process, confounding capacity utilization 

calculations. Plywood operations are normally constrained 

Table 6—OSB costs and revenues for benchmark 

northcentral U.S. mills, 2000–2006

Cost (US$/m3)

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Direct costs 

Wood 56 54 53 60 67 85 82

Labor 20 20 20 21 21 22 22

Resin 18 19 19 26 27 32 29

Wax 6 6 6 7 7 8 7

Energy 11 13 12 15 17 19 19

Supplies 14 14 14 15 15 15 15

Total direct 125 125 124 144 154 181 175

Fixed costs

General 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

Depreciation 23 21 20 21 20 20 20

Total fixed 29 27 26 27 26 26 26

Total costs 154 153 150 171 180 207 201

Company 

annual reports – 151 144 170 187 208 –

Revenues 192 149 149 276 349 299 264

Company 

annual reports – 157 158 273 356 315 –

Margin 19% –2% –1% 38% 49% 31% 24%

Company 

annual reports

– 4% 8% 38% 47% 34% –

Figure 9—Oriented strandboard (OSB) regional costs, 

2000–2006.

Figure 10—Softwood plywood capacity, 1980–2006.

Research Paper FPL–RP–636
 9

by their dryers, and if that capacity is partly used for wood 

that does not get made into plywood, then utilization appears lower than it actually is. In that context, we note that 

average plywood capacity utilization has been lower than 

that of its OSB counterparts over the period 1988 to 2005 at 

91.6% compared with OSB’s 93.4%. By and large, however, 

their cyclical movements have tended to coincide (Fig. 11).

Industry Concentration

Plywood industry concentration is not as high as OSB’s, but 

it has been an issue in the past. In 1973, the largest producer 

(Georgia Pacific) split in two (Georgia Pacific and Louisiana 

Pacific) to effect a reduction in industry concentration. By 

2005 the latter had exited the plywood business in favor 

of OSB, leaving the former again as the dominant entity, 

though the significance of that is lessened in the context 

of rising OSB and imported Brazilian plywood volumes. 

A total of 41 firms compose the North American softwood 

plywood universe among which the top six account for 63% 

(Table 7).

Employment

Veneers have traditionally been graded according to visual 

criteria. That and the large size of each sheet necessitate 

considerable handling and sorting. It follows that labor input 

is also high. Staffing of plywood mills varies depending on 

a plant’s product focus. The more specialty product-oriented 

a plant is, the greater the number of process steps that 

are involved. Overall, capacity per employee is about 

0.7 million ft2 (0.6 thousand m3) per year (370 ft2 

(0.3 m3)/h), up from about 0.61 ft2 (0.5 thousand m3) per 

year (305 ft2 (0.27 m3)/h) 17 years ago (Fig. 12). Among 

regions, southern mills have the highest productivity per 

employee at about 450 ft2 (0.4 m3) per h due to their greater 

emphasis on commodity sheathing. Industry employment 

declined from 44,000 in 1988 to about 24,600 now.

Wood Use

In a full-process plywood mill, wood use efficiency depends 

in large measure on the size of the bolt being peeled. The 

larger the bolt, the smaller the share of roundup waste. Similarly, the residual core makes up a smaller proportion of the 

bolt. Other major generators of waste residues are the clipper, where defects along part of the ribbon of peeled veneer 

cause a good deal of otherwise sound wood to be lost, and 

the trim saws where panels are squared. Unlike the growing press sizes in OSB, plywood presses remain at the 4- by 

8- or 4- by 10-ft dimensions where the trim loss is relatively 

high. One major point of departure from OSB is the much 

smaller compaction factor. Whereas an OSB panel has to 

be compacted by 30% to 40% to assure adequate bonding, 

plywood panels experience very little compaction, and thus 

veneers can be cut thinner than would otherwise be the case. 

Wood-use efficiency estimates are muddied by the diversion 

of some veneers to LVL, as also by the inflow of green veneer from outside vendors.

Figure 11—North American plywood and OSB capacity 

utilization, 1988–2005.

Figure 12—Average annual capacity per employee in 

plywood plants, 1988–2005.

Table 7—Plywood capacity 

ownership, 2005

Firm

 Share of 

 capacity 

 (%)

Georgia Pacific 31

International Paper 9

Weyerhaeuser 8

Boise Cascade 7

Roseburg 5

Tolko 4

West Fraser 4

Canfor 3

Hood 2

Plum Creek 2

Martco 2

Scotch Plywood 2

Hunt Plywood 2

Timber Products 1

Emerald Forest Products 1

26 Others 18

Top 6 share 63

Status and Trends: Profile of Structural Panels in the United States and Canada
10

Overall, among our combined sample of 33 mills, we found 

the wood input needed to make a cubic meter of plywood to 

be 1.87 m3, or a yield factor of about 54%. We saw little difference between our 1997 and 2005 samples, but both showed 

a high variability with a standard deviation of ±7%.

Resin Use

Liquid PF is the resin of choice in plywood manufacturing. 

Since the specific surface area to be bonded (the combined 

surfaces of the veneers relative to the surface of the panel) 

is smaller than for OSB, requirements for resin are also 

lower. On the other hand, as glue spreads cannot be tailored 

for specific areas, the overall coverage has to be based on 

the needs of the most deficient parts. Veneers have rougher 

surfaces and are variable in moisture and thickness, which 

necessitates greater resin usage than would be needed under 

ideal conditions. Resin application rates are varied mostly 

on a seasonal basis or in response to bonding problems 

detected at the hot press, although development in real 

time measurement of veneer attributes and controlling glue 

spread accordingly has been under development (Faust and 

Rice 1987). 

Glue usage is measured by the weight of the resin solution 

in kilograms (pounds) per 1,000 ft2 of glueline. Typical 

gross spreads (including waste) range from 11 to 18 kg 

(25 to 40 lb) per 1,000 ft2 of a single glueline, depending on 

wood species, veneer quality attributes, ambient temperatures, and method of application specific to a mill. Everything else being the same, on a normalized 3/8-in. basis, the 

amount needed depends on the number of gluelines in an 

assembly, the panel thickness, and the panel mix. The actual 

PF resin solid content by weight of mixtures is usually on 

the order of 25% to 27%, the bulk of the rest being water 

with smaller amounts of glue extenders, fillers, and caustic 

soda. For a hypothetical product mix shown in Table 8, the 

average resin solids consumption would come to 11 kg 

(24 lb) per 1,000 ft2 (3/8-in.). 

The method of application also affects use. In its early history, the industry used manually fed rollers to coat the veneers 

with glue. This method resulted in high waste for veneers 

of uneven thickness because resin coverage would be inadequate over the thinner sections; as a result the entire piece 

would have to be discarded. Some older mills today still use 

such systems, but the bulk of the high-volume operations use 

automated spray or curtain-coating systems. An alternative 

method used by some mills is to foam the glue mixture and 

lay it down in parallel lines. This reportedly results in more 

even coverage and less resin use. 

We measured resin usage by dividing the reported solids 

equivalent weight of purchase receipts by annual production. This resulted in an average rate of use of 12 kg (26 lb) 

of PF resins per 1,000 ft2 (3/8-in. basis) of panel production. 

Along with that, 2 kg (5 lb) each of extenders and fillers 

were used. By comparison, OSB requires approximately 

20 kg (44 lb) of PF resin solids when applied in liquid form. 

Energy Use

Most plywood mills peel their own veneers from roundwood, and some of the residues offer a ready supply of fuel. 

This furnishes much of their heating needs, and as in OSB, 

outside energy purchases are mainly limited to electricity 

and fuels for rolling stock. Mills that are primarily lay-up 

operations of veneer bought from outside suppliers tend to 

have large natural gas purchases for veneer drying, as do 

plants that employ RTOs. Natural gas usage on the average 

was nearly double in a plant running an RTO than in one 

that was not, according to our 1997 results. The usage intensity, however, was lower than for a similar OSB operation. 

Overall, natural gas among all responding mills averaged 

0.39 ft3 per 1,000 ft2 in 2005, little changed from 0.34 in 

1997 (Table 9).

Electricity usage was similar to an OSB plant’s, ranging 

from 133-to-146k = kWh/1,000 ft2 in our two surveys. 

Diesel and propane usage each averaged about 1 L 

(0.26 gal) between our two surveys.

Costs and Profitability

Table 10 contains a historical perspective on input costs for 

a benchmark plywood operation with values for a Louisiana/east Texas location. The most notable difference between this and Table 5 is the wood component. Bigger log 

sizes and higher grade requirements mean that wood costs 

about twice as much as the type of wood that is sufficient 

for OSB production.

Table 8—PF resin use rates by panel assemblies

Item 1 2 3 Total

Plies 3 4 5

Panel thickness (mm) 9.5 11.9 19.1

Number of gluelines 2 3 4

Spread/1000 ft2 glueline

 (lb) 40 40 40

 (kg) 18 18 18

Resin solids 27% 27% 27%

Resin in spread

 (lb) 10.8 10.8 10.8

 (kg) 5 5 5

Total resin in panel 

 (lb) 21.6 32.4 43.2

 (kg) 9.8 14.7 19.6

Use per 1000 ft2, 3/8 in.

 (lb) 21.6 25.9 21.6

 (kg) 9.8 11.7 9.8

Output percentage 20 60 20

Plant average

 (lb) 4.3 + 15.6 + 4.3 = 24.2

 (kg) 2.0 + 7.0 + 2.0 = 11.0

Research Paper FPL–RP–636
 11

Table 11 applies these costs to usage rates for a 200 thousand m3 (230 million ft2) per year, 260 employee, mostly 

sheathing-oriented plywood mill. Labor costs are based on 

both hourly and salaried staff and include all employee benefits. Consistent with the higher labor requirements, labor 

costs are about three times higher than those for OSB. 

Wood costs are based on a conservative 51% yield and typical delivered sawlog prices in Louisiana and east Texas. In 

contrast to most OSB plants, an added element that partially 

defrays these costs is revenue generated from salable residues (chips and cores). 

Another difference is depreciation, as most plywood mills 

are 30 or more years old and thus have less capital costs to 

write off. This can be a double-edged sword, however, because if a mill remains technologically stagnant, it tends to 

get shut down.

Figure 13 plots these combined costs in relation to those 

for a southern OSB mill. The differential has remained 

relatively steady in percentage terms but climbed in 

absolute terms and in recent years has been about 

$80/m3 ($70/1,000 ft2) in favor of OSB.

Profit margins have followed the cyclical movements of 

OSB, but generally have been lower. For the 2000 to 2006 

benchmark period, the average benchmark southern OSB 

margin was 26% compared with 12% for plywood.

Structural Panels

Trade

The largest share of trade in plywood and OSB takes place 

between the United States and Canada. In 2005, the United 

States supplied 77% and 74% of total Canadian plywood 

and OSB imports, respectively. Similarly, Canada supplied 

94% of U.S. OSB imports, although only 24% of plywood 

imports. For Canada, U.S. destinations represented the majority of shipments, as only a small part goes to Europe and 

Asia. United States panel exports, on the other hand, are 

more diverse as Canada accounts for only 28% and 65% of 

U.S. plywood and OSB foreign sales.

Historically, Canada had been the leading exporter of plywood to the United States. However, in 2003, Brazil took 

over the top spot. Starting in 1998, the U.S. dollar rose 

sharply against the Brazilian real, resulting in increased U.S. 

purchasing power. This created an opportunity for Brazilian 

plywood manufacturers to gain a foothold in the 

American market. Imports from Brazil increased from 

511 thousand m3 (578 million ft2) in 2003 to 

1.128 million m3 (1.275 billion ft2) by 2004. In 2002, however, the real plateaued and since 2004 has appreciated significantly. For a period, the rise in plywood prices masked 

this effect. The average 2002 price of southern plywood 

(15/32 in.) rose from $247 to $398 in 2004, a 61% increase 

(Fig. 14, right scale). This in turn was similar to the rise in 

reals, which went from 721 in 2002 to 1169 in 2004 

(Fig. 14, left scale). In 2005, however, the average price fell 

Table 9—Average plywood energy use, 1997 and 2005

RTOa No RTO Total

Year Samples

Energy 

use Samples

Energy 

use Samples

Energy

use

Natural gas (ft3/1,000 ft2)

1997 4 0.62 15 0.23 19 0.34

2005 na na 14 0.39

Electricity (kWh/1,000 ft2)

1997 4 146 15 135 19 138

2005 na na 13 146

Diesel (gal/1,000 ft2)

1997 19 0.16

2005 14 0.32

Propane (gal/1,000 ft2)

1997 19 0.20

2005 14 0.25

a Regenerative thermal oxidizers.

Table 10—Approximate costs of various plywood manufacturing inputs for a 

southern U.S. location, 2000 to 2006

Cost (US$/unit)

Cost item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Wood (m3) 66 59 62 64 65 70 70

 (ccfa) 187 167 175 180 185 198 198

Labor (h) 18.7 19.7 20.6 21.7 22.9 23.9 24.7

Liquid PF (kg) 0.81 0.83 0.85 1.18 1.20 1.41 1.27

 (lb) 0.36 0.38 0.38 0.53 0.54 0.64 0.58

Fillers (kg) 0.26 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.29 0.29 0.27

Extenders (lb) 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.12

Natural gas (GJ) 4.1 4.9 3.8 5.3 6.1 7.6 7.4

 (1,000 ft3) 4.5 5.2 4.1 5.8 6.6 8.2 8.0

Electricity (kWh) 0.040 0.039 0.040 0.055 0.055 0.057 0.058

Diesel (liter) 0.26 0.25 0.23 0.28 0.35 0.48 0.53

 (gal) 1.00 0.95 0.88 1.05 1.35 1.84 2.00

aHundred cubic feet. 

Status and Trends: Profile of Structural Panels in the United States and Canada
12

to $351, which translates to 855 reals, resulting in a 27% 

drop as opposed to a 12% decline in dollars. In addition, 

when the United States imposed an 8% tariff on Brazilian 

plywood in July of 2005, the effective total price for Brazilian exporters dropped an even greater 33%. 

These developments have naturally altered Brazilian plywood competitiveness. In the quarter prior to the tariff, the 

United States imported 588 million ft2 of non-Canadian 

plywood. In the quarter after, U.S. imports fell to 

411 million ft2, a 30% decline. Overall, in 2005, U.S. plywood imports from Brazil increased 14% from 2004, the 

smallest increase in 5 years.

In addition to domestic market share losses, the United 

States also lost markets in Europe to Brazilian competition. 

Over a decade ago, U.S. exports to Europe were about 

0.9 million m3 (1 billion ft2) a year. By 2004, this had fallen 

to just 5 thousand m3 (6 million ft2). With a weaker dollar 

favoring the United States, this doubled in 2005, but to a 

still trivial 10 thousand m3 (12 million ft2).

Chile has also become a force in the plywood sector as the 

removal of tariffs in 2002 through the United States–Chile 

Free Trade Agreement increased its competitiveness. Chile’s 

U.S. exports rose from almost nothing in 1998 to over 

175 thousand m3 (200 million ft2) in 2005 (Fig. 15). However, the global rise in copper demand and prices, a product 

of which Chile is a major supplier, has boosted the currency, 

lessening Chilean competitiveness in other goods.

Similarly, with the depreciation of the dollar against the 

Brazilian real and the 8% tariff that the United States has 

imposed, the U.S. demand for Brazilian plywood should 

moderate in the short term. 

Margin–Capacity Use Relationships

For the most part, softwood plywood and OSB are interchangeable commodities that compete in the same markets 

mostly on the basis of price. As a result, their pricing trends 

Figure 13—Plywood (Southwest) and OSB (Southeast) 

total manufacturing costs, 2000–2006.

Figure 14—Average southern plywood prices, 1998–

2006.

Table 11—Plywood costs and revenues for benchmark 

Southern U.S. mill, 2000–2006

Cost (US$/m3)

Cost item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Wood 130 116 121 125 128 137 137

Residues –18 –17 –17 –17 –18 –18 –18

Labor 52 54 55 58 60 62 63

Resin 12 12 12 16 17 20 18

Extenders 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Energy 13 13 13 18 19 21 22

Supplies 20 20 21 21 21 22 22

Total direct 210 199 208 223 229 244 246

Fixed costs

General 7 6 6 6 6 7 7

Depreciation 10 9 9 8 8 8 8

Total fixed 17 15 15 15 15 15 15

Total costs 227 214 222 237 244 259 261

Revenues 238 233 220 289 356 316 285

Margin 5% 7% –1% 18% 32% 18% 8%

Figure 15—U.S. plywood imports, 1998–2005.

Research Paper FPL–RP–636

Direct costs
13

follow similar patterns, albeit at different levels because of 

differences in cost and felt value (Fig. 16). 

Prices for basic commodities in general are determined by 

demand–supply balances. Plywood and OSB prices have 

exceptionally volatile histories largely because of inelastic 

supply and demand in the short run (2 years or less). On the 

supply side, the long lag in building new plants and the absence of much reserve capacity once a plant reaches its full 

potential limits the ability to meet surges in demand. On the 

consumption side, the highly cyclical and seasonal housing 

market promotes variability in demand while the paucity of 

ready alternatives limits user options. These make markets 

somewhat inflexible and prices subject to wide swings.

In general, manufacturing costs determine basic pricing 

trends in an industry while the demand–supply balances 

influence how far prices are above or below costs. The most 

readily available measure of supply tightness is the previously discussed capacity utilization rate. Table 12 summarizes North American combined OSB and plywood capacity 

and production and capacity utilization, along with OSB 

variable costs, prices and margins for 1988 to 2005. 

When we collect the data in Table 12 into groups based on 

four levels of capacity utilization and average the utilization 

rates and margins within each group, we get the data summarized in Table 13 and illustrated in Figure 17. We empirically fitted the curve to the data in Figure 17 embodied in 

the following equation:

 Margin = (Capacity Utilization)23

 ÷ (Capacity Utilization – 0.61)

The data and the derived formula show a strong tendency 

to rise exponentially as the capacity utilization rate approaches 1. This translates to different effects on margins 

and prices over different levels of capacity use. That is, at 

higher levels of slack capacity, a given change in supply or 

demand has less effect on price than when the same occurs 

when capacity is tight. 

This relationship can be used in either static or dynamic 

planning exercises to gauge the likely market effects of 

changes in supply or demand. For a static example, at capacity utilization of 0.95, a firm contemplating building a 

new mill that would decrease the aggregate utilization rate 

to 0.93 could determine the expected effect on margins. 

At 0.95, the expected margin given by the formula is 90% 

(90% over average industry variable costs). At 0.93, the 

expected margin drops to 59%. If industry average variable costs at the time are $160, then the price under the first 

scenario would $304 (160 × 1.9), while under the second it 

would be $254 (160 × 1.59). Part of the firm’s decision rests 

upon whether the gain in volume and sales is enough to offset the loss in margin the firm’s other plants would have to 

bear. A dynamic elaboration of that would take into account 

expected changes in manufacturing costs, demand, market 

Figure 16—Southern plywood and northcentral OSB 

prices, 1988–2005.

Figure 17—Oriented strandboard (OSB) margin–

structural panel capacity utilization relationship. Blue 

line signifies fitted relationship; red diamonds signify 

observed values.

Table 12—Structural panel capacity and production and 

U.S. OSB costs and prices, 1988–2005

Year

Capacity 

(million m3)

Production 

(m3)

Utilization

rate

Prices

($/m3)

Variable 

costs ($/m3)

Margin

(%)

1988 30.5 28.1 0.921 123 117 5

1989 31.2 27.9 0.893 166 123 35

1990 31.3 27.4 0.875 126 117 8

1991 30.7 24.9 0.810 142 113 26

1992 29.7 27.2 0.917 209 115 83

1993 29.6 27.9 0.945 226 121 86

1994 30.2 29.0 0.959 256 124 106

1995 31.3 29.3 0.935 236 135 76

1996 35.1 31.8 0.906 178 130 37

1997 36.7 32.7 0.892 138 139 0

1998 36.6 34.3 0.937 197 140 40

1999 37.4 35.6 0.951 252 130 94

2000 37.7 35.7 0.946 200 130 53

2001 37.8 34.5 0.912 154 128 20

2002 38.5 35.7 0.928 155 130 20

2003 38.8 36.2 0.932 285 147 94

2004 39.8 37.8 0.948 357 146 145

2005 40.1 38.2 0.951 312 159 96

Status and Trends: Profile of Structural Panels in the United States and Canada
14

growth, and other firms’ capacities while the new mill is 

being built.

End Use

Life Cycle Context

The evolution of products in markets is usually described 

in terms of a life cycle framework, which traces a pathway 

of growth, maturation, and possible decline. It begins with 

a product’s emergence and early struggle to get accepted, 

which involves developing and testing a product, gaining 

code and regulatory approvals, building the first installations, cultivating a market, and so forth. This is followed 

by a growth spurt once its advantages are recognized and 

the product gains critical market size and acceptance. At the 

point where most market participants have adopted the innovation, normally around a 75% market share, the growth 

rate slows. Depending on the absence or advent of a better 

alternative, at that point it can stabilize or reverse.

Plywood and OSB have been engaged in these markets over 

the past 30 years. Plywood reached its zenith in the early 

1970s when larger old-growth timber in the U.S. West was 

either exhausted or its availability restricted. This provided 

an opportunity for a composite-based alternative, first 

manifested in waferboard, which then morphed into OSB. 

To view the evolution of these products in this context, we 

created general approximations to the changing size of their 

market, represented by a combination of housing starts and 

gross domestic product, converted to panel equivalents. The 

production volumes of these products were then compared 

in ratio form to these benchmarks, resulting in the curves 

depicted in Figure 18. 

Plywood had a long history prior to the period depicted in 

the charts, but its use as a structural building material began 

in earnest only around the 1930s. Accordingly, its introductory phase lasted about two decades. Similarly, structural 

particleboards bonded with phenolic resins date back to the 

1950s but it was not until about 30 years later that the technology was refined to the point that it could be said to have 

broken out of its nascent phase.

Plywood’s rapid market acceptance took place in the 1950s 

and 1960s and reached maturity by the late 1960s. It held 

there for about two decades, at which point it began to give 

way to OSB. The latter’s own rapid growth phase can be 

dated from the early 1980s to the present. It is now nearing 

mature product status, but appears to have a market share 

residual growth potential of around 25% to 30% before it 

maxes out and its fluctuations become more directly tied to 

changes in its markets. This is somewhat less than the plywood residual share because of industrial uses where 

appearance is an important criterion and OSB is at a 

disadvantage. 

With that as background, we examine current knowledge 

about the status of these products in their end-use markets. 

This discussion focuses principally on current and potential 

use of structural panels for sheathing (including underlayment) and exterior siding applications. Not included are 

structural panel uses in industrial, packaging and shipping, 

and miscellaneous uses and the use of engineered lumber 

products. 

Structural Panel Demand 

The construction of new buildings and their upkeep and 

improvement form the largest market for structural panels in the United States. Three recently completed studies 

enumerated the types and amounts of wood products used 

in 2003 to build new residential structures, to repair and remodel residential structures, and to build, alter, and renovate 

low-rise nonresidential buildings (Wood Products Council 

2005a; Wood Products Council 2005b; McKeever and 

others 2006).

Overall, an estimated 33.8 million m3 (38 billion ft2, 3/8 in.) 

of structural panels were consumed in the United States in 

2003 for all uses (Table 14). Of this, nearly one-half (49%) 

was for new residential construction (single family houses, 

and multifamily apartments). Total residential construction, 

which includes new construction and repair and remodeling but excludes manufactured housing, accounted for 63% 

of all structural panel consumption, low-rise nonresidential 

buildings 6%, and all other uses 31%. OSB was the 

structural panel in greatest demand. In 2003, nearly 

20 million m3 (22 billion ft2) were consumed for all uses, 

compared to 13.8 million m3 (16 billion ft2) of softwood 

plywood.

Table 13—Structural panel capacity utilization and 

U.S. OSB margins (price-variable cost), by capacity 

utilization class, 1988–2005

Capacity 

utilization (%) Number

Average 

utilization (%)

Average

margin (%)

<89 2 84.2 17

89–91.9 5 90.4 33

92–94.9 8 93.7 67

>95 3 95.4 99

Figure 18—Stages of plywood and OSB life cycle evolution, 1945–2005.

Research Paper FPL–RP–636
15

New Residential Construction

New residential construction is the biggest market for wood 

building products in general, and for structural panels in 

particular. In 2003, an estimated 16.4 million m3 of structural panels were used to build new single-family and multifamily houses, of which about three-fourths was OSB 

(Table 14). New and planned increases in structural panel 

capacity, specifically OSB capacity, have caused some 

concern regarding possible markets for this added production. New residential construction, although already a large 

market for structural panels, can potentially absorb large 

additional volumes. To estimate how much more could be 

absorbed, we examined recent trends in market shares for 

major sheathing and siding applications in new single-family and new low-rise multifamily houses in 1995, 1998, and 

2003 (Table 15).

Structural panels are the principal sheathing product in new 

residential floors, exterior walls, and roofs. Exterior siding, 

once an important use for structural panels, has eroded in recent years. Fascia and soffits and webs for wood I‐joists also 

provide additional opportunities, but are relatively small and 

were not quantified here. 

For flooring, structural panels had 49% of the single-family and 41% of the multifamily sheathing market in 2003 

(Table 15). Shares in both were down from 1995 when 55% 

and 54% of all floors had structural panel sheathing. The 

declines were due to increases in concrete slab floor systems 

and nonstructural panel floor underlayment. The concrete 

slab is both a foundation and first-story floor system. Typically little if any wood is used in conjunction with concrete 

slabs. In recent years, nonstructural panels have also gained 

market share as underlayment over concrete slab floors to 

provide a more uniform surface for finished flooring. The 

percentage of concrete floors varies, but is typically around 

one-third of total floor area for single-family houses. Multifamily use of concrete slabs is usually higher. 

Oriented strandboard has steadily eroded softwood plywood’s share of the floor-sheathing market. Since 1976, 

OSB has increased from a negligible share to 61% in 2003 

of the plywood–OSB mix. The share in multifamily houses 

has stabilized at around 55%. In the absence of any other 

structural sheathing products, any additional increases in 

structural panel market share must come at the expense of 

concrete slab floors.

In floor systems, we estimated the market potential for structural panels to be nearly 3 million m3 (3.4 billion ft2) for 

single-family houses and 0.4 million m3 (0.5 billion ft2) for 

multifamily buildings (Table 15). Market potential is defined 

here as the sum of the amounts of lumber and nonstructural 

panels currently being used as sheathing, converted to the 

equivalent amounts of structural panels, plus the amount of 

structural panels that would be required to displace concrete. 

Although unlikely, displacement of concrete slabs by a 

framed and sheathed wood floor system, or a “hybrid” 

wood sheathed–wood slab floor system, would result in 

2.5 million m3 (2.8 billion ft2) of the additional structural 

panel demand.

In wall sheathing, structural panels had 67% of the singlefamily and 60% of the multifamily markets in 2003 

(Table 15). This was significantly higher than previous 

years. In 1995, only about one-half of walls were sheathed 

by structural panels. Foamed plastic, once a major competitor, has lost share since 1995. It now has only a 12% share 

in single-family homes and 6% in multifamily units. In 

fact, walls with no sheathing at all have a greater share than 

foamed plastic in multifamily dwellings.

Trends in OSB use compared with softwood plywood have 

paralleled those in floor sheathing, but at a higher level. 

OSB’s share of the single-family structural panel sheathing 

market increased from 63% in 1995 to 85% in 2003. Conversely, OSB use in multifamily houses fell from 77% to 

69% during the same time period.

Overall market potential for structural panels in single-family and multifamily wall sheathing was estimated to be nearly 2.2 million m3 (2.5 billion ft2) in 2003 (Table 15). The 

single-family wall sheathing market accounted for nearly 

94% of this potential.

In roof sheathing, structural panels are by far, and have been 

for many years, the product of choice. In 2003, structural 

panels accounted for 98% of the single-family and 99% of 

the multifamily roof sheathing market (Table 15). Small 

residual amounts of lumber sheathing are used, primarily under tile or metal roofs, as are slight amounts of other 

sheathing products.

Table 14—Structural panel consumption in the United 

States, 2003

End use

Construction (million m3) Market

 share

 (%)

Softwood

plywood OSB Total

Residential constructiona

 New 4.5 11.9 16.4 49%

 Repair & remodel 3.7 1.2 4.9 14%

 Total residential 8.2 13.1 21.3 63%

Nonresidential constructionb

New & additions 1.3 0.3 1.6 5%

 Alterations 0.4 0.1 0.5 1%

Total nonresidential 1.6 0.4 2.0 6%

Total buildings 9.8 13.4 23.3 69%

Total all otherc 4.0 6.5 10.5 31%

Total 13.8 19.9 33.8 100%

aExcludes manufactured housing.

bLow-rise structures of four or fewer stories only.

cIncludes industrial, packaging and shipping, and miscellaneous uses.

Source: Adair 2004.

Status and Trends: Profile of Structural Panels in the United States and Canada
16

Table 15—Wood products use and market potential for structural panels in new residential construction, 2003

Single Family Multifamily

Sheathing application 

and building product

2003 2003

Area 

covered

(milllion m2)

Amount

used

(1,000 m3)

Structural 

panel 

potential

(1,000 m3)

Area 

covered

(million m2)

Amount 

used

(1,000 m3)

Structural 

panel 

potential

(1,000 m3 1995 1998 2003 1995 1998 2003 )

Floors

 Structural panels

 Softwood plywood 31 28 19 87.3 1,570.2 – 24 26 19 11.6 198.2 – 

 OSB 24 31 30 134.7 2,455.8 – 30 29 22 13.6 244.4 – 

 Total 55 59 49 222.0 4,025.9 – 54 55 41 25.1 442.6 – 

 Lumber (a)a 2 (a) 2.2 41.7 41.6 (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a)

 Nonstructural panelsb 9 11 13 58.6 425.4 730.0 7 10 16 9.8 67.4 142.5

 Concrete slabc 35 28 37 117.8 – 2,226.6 39 35 43 15.3 – 280.1

 Total 100 100 100 400.6 4,493.1 2,998.2 100 100 100 50.3 510.0 422.6

Walls

 Structural panels

 Softwood plywood 19 12 10 46.5 596.4 – 10 17 18 4.6 57.0 – 

 OSB 33 47 57 274.7 3,433.5 – 33 44 42 10.3 131.5 – 

 Total 52 60 67 321.1 4,029.9 – 43 61 60 14.9 188.4 – 

 Foamed plastic 29 21 12 56.0 704.5 703.0 34 15 6 1.6 20.4 20.3

 All other

 Lumber (a) 2 1 4.6 nab 57.2 (a) 3 6 1.4 na 17.7

 Fiberboard 6 8 4 20.0 na 250.4 5 5 10 2.5 na 31.8

 Foil-faced kraft 3 4 5 24.7 na 310.4 1 4 3 0.6 na 8.0

 Cement, gypsum 

 board 2 1 2 9.7 na 121.1 8 6 6 1.5 na 18.8

 Total 11 15 12 58.9 745.6 739.2 14 18 24 6.0 76.7 76.3

 Noned 8 4 10 46.8 – 587.2 9 5 9 2.3 – 29.2

 Total 100 100 100 482.8 5,479.9 2,029.3 100 100 100 24.9 285.6 125.9

Roofs

 Structural panels 62 73 76 80 72 70

 Softwood plywood 37 26 24 126.4 1,711.4 – 19 28 30 10.8 153.9 – 

 OSB 61 72 74 381.8 5,055.0 – 75 70 69 24.8 361.3 – 

 Total 98 99 98 508.1 6,766.4 – 94 98 99 35.6 515.2 – 

 All other

 Lumber 1 1 1 4.9 na 65.1 1 (a) 1 0.2 na 2.6

 Other (a) (a) 1 5.5 na 73.1 5 2 (a) 0.1 na 0.8

 Total 1 1 2 10.4 138.4 138.1 6 2 1 0.2 3.3 3.4

 None (a) (a) (a) 1.9 – 25.9 (a) (a) (a) (a) – 0.1

 Total 100 100 100 518.5 6,904.8 164.0 100 100 100 35.9 518.5 3.5

Siding

 Structural panels

 Softwood plywood 4 1 1 3.5 68.9 – 2 2 (a) 0.1 1.7 – 

 OSB 5 2 3 10.6 182.5 – 2 3 (a) 0.1 1.0 – 

 Total 9 3 3 14.1 251.4 – 4 5 1 0.1 2.7 – 

 Lumber 7 6 5 21.1 552.2 375.2 2 7 2 0.3 8.8 6.2

 Hardboard 6 8 3 13.7 192.4 244.7 5 8 6 1.2 17.3 22.0

 All other

 Vinyl, metal 29 32 27 113.5 na 2,021.4 41 35 43 9.3 na 163.8

 Masonry, stucco 48 47 61 254.2 na 4,525.7 48 43 43 9.2 na 164.3

 Other 1 4 1 3.5 na 61.4 (a) 4 6 1.2 na 21.7

 Total 78 84 88 371.2 – 6,608.5 89 82 92 19.7 – 349.8

Total 100 100 100 420.1 996.0 7,228.3 100 100 100 21.5 28.8 378.0

Total, all applications – – – – – 12,419.9 929.9

aLess than 0.5%, 50,000 m2, or 50 m3. bParticle board and MDF

cIncludes lightweight concrete.

dIncludes structural insulated panels (SIPs).

Sources: Wood Products 1999a, 2005a; Wood Products Promotion Council 1996.

Research Paper FPL–RP–636

Incidence of 

use (%)

Incidence of 

use (%)
17

As in other sheathing applications, the use of OSB has 

grown at the expense of softwood plywood. In single-family 

houses, OSB now has a 75% share of the structural panel 

roof sheathing market. OSB market share has fallen recently 

in multifamily houses from 80% in 1995 to 70% in 2003.

Little market potential exists for structural panels in 

roof sheathing. Displacing lumber and other assorted 

sheathing materials would result in a net gain of less 

than 0.2 million m3 (0.2 billion ft2).

Wood products play a very small role in siding. Only about 

one-tenth of the new residential market was wood in 2003 

(Table 15). Structural panels captured just 3% of the singlefamily and 1% of the multifamily siding markets. The rise in 

popularity of vinyl and metal siding experienced during the 

1970s and 1980s has given way to a renewed interest in masonry and stucco. In 2003, nearly 60% of the exterior residential siding market was masonry–stucco siding products. 

Softwood plywood and OSB siding use was nearly equal in 

single-family construction (1% and 3%, respectively), and 

equal in multifamily construction (less than 1% each) in 

2003.

Since structural panels had such a small market share in 

2003, the potential is large. Capturing the lumber and hardboard markets would result in a gain of 0.6 million m3

(0.7 billion ft2). Capturing the non-wood siding market is 

improbable, but could result in a gain of nearly 7 million m3 

(7.8 billion ft2) (Table 15).

Overall, we estimate maximum market potential for structural panel sheathing and siding in new residential construction to be 13.3 million m3 (15 billion ft2) in 2003. Achieving 

this potential will be difficult at best. Exterior siding use is 

57% of the total, or 7.6 million m3 (8.6 billion ft2) (Fig. 19). 

Because vinyl and brick have such low maintenance, convincing consumers to use structural panel siding would be 

a marketing challenge. 

Floors have the second highest potential at 3.4 million m3

(3.8 billion ft2) or about one-fourth of the potential. Nearly 

all of this is dependent on replacing concrete slab-on-grade 

floor systems. About one-half of new houses are built with 

wood floor systems on either a basement or crawlspace 

foundation. The remaining one-half has either a slab-ongrade or other type of floor system. In terms of floor area, 

more than one-third of all floors are concrete slab. Slab-ongrade floors are very popular in the southern United States 

because they are perceived to be a solution to environmental 

concerns over excessive moisture and insect and disease 

problems. Home owners must be convinced that modern 

wood floor systems perform as well as concrete and are a 

viable alternative to the slab-on-grade floor system. Anecdotal evidence from the Hurricane Katrina disaster indicates 

that houses with wood floor systems on crawlspace foundations weathered the storm better than those with slabon-grade floor systems. This has led some to believe 

building codes in flood-prone areas will be modified to mandate wood-intensive crawlspace construction in lieu of slab 

on grade.

Exterior wall sheathing accounts for 2.2 million m3

(2.5 billion ft2), 16% of total potential. About 34% of this 

potential is dependent on replacing foamed plastic wall 

sheathing with structural panels, 38% on replacing all other 

types of wall sheathing, and 29% on sheathing currently 

unsheathed walls. 

Roof market potential is negligible. 

Additional potential exists in the fascia and soffit, and wood 

I-joist markets. Currently, about 7% of OSB production is 

classified as “other,” which primarily consists of webbing 

for I-joists (Adair 2004). 

In terms of construction type, new single-family construction accounts for 93% of total new residential potential. 

Achievement of all or part of this potential will be difficult 

and will require concerted promotional efforts, research 

into improved products, competitive pricing, and changes in 

building codes or building practices to more fully utilize the 

added structural panel potential.

Residential Repair and Remodeling

The residential repair and remodeling market is second only 

to residential construction in the amounts of structural 

panels consumed annually. In 2003, 4.9 million m3

(5.5 billion ft2) of structural panels were consumed. However, the percentage breakdown between softwood plywood 

and OSB is about 75/25, just the opposite of OSB (Wood 

Products Council 2005b). This reversal is due most likely to 

home owners’ preference for more traditional wood products. As with residential construction, the repair and remodeling market too holds significant potential to increase the 

use of structural panels. To estimate how much more could 

Figure 19—Structural panel market potential, new 

residential construction, 2003.

Status and Trends: Profile of Structural Panels in the United States and Canada
18

Table 16—Wood products use, and market potential for structural panels in residential 

repair and remodeling, 2003

2003

Sheathing application and building product

Incidence of use 

 (%) Area covered

(1,000,000 m2)

 Amount 

 used

(1,000 m3)

 Structural 

panel potential

(1,000 m3)

Floors

 Structural panels

 Softwood plywood 75 74 59 899.9 – 

 OSB 22 20 16 273.2 – 

 Total 97 94 75 1,173.1 – 

 Lumber 3 6 5 78.2 77.9

 Nonstructural panelsa nab na –c – – 

 Concrete slabd na na – – – 

 Total 100 100 80 1,251.3 77.9

Walls

 Structural panels

 Softwood plywood 54 55 53 681.2 – 

 OSB 26 30 29 377.2 – 

 Total 80 86 82 1,058.3 – 

 Foamed plastic 7 5 5 60.7 60.6

 All other

 Lumber na na – – – 

 Fiberboard na na – – – 

 Foil-faced kraft na na – – – 

 Cement, gypsum board na na – – – 

 Total 13 9 9 115.9 115.6

 None na na – – – 

 Total 100 100 95 1,234.9 176.2

Roofs

 Structural panels

 Softwood plywood 63 70 103 1,360.2 – 

 OSB 24 23 34 470.0 – 

 Total 87 93 138 1,830.2 – 

 All other

 Lumber na na – – – 

 Other 13 7 11 145.3 144.8

 Total 13 7 11 145.3 144.8

 Total 100 100 148 1,975.5 144.8

Exterior siding

 Structural panels

 Softwood plywood 7 5 28 563.1 – 

 OSB 2 (a) 2 36.8 – 

 Total 9 6 31 599.8 – 

 Lumber 7 11 59 797.0 1,156.6

 Hardboard 5 2 9 122.4 171.6

 All other

 Vinyl, metal 68 60 315 – 6,190.4

 Masonry, stucco 6 17 87 – 1,713.1

 Other 5 5 26 – 515.3

 Total 79 81 429 – 8,418.7

Total 100 100 527 1,519.3 9,746.9

Total, all applications – – – – 10,145.8

aIncludes particleboard, hardboard, hardwood plywood, and cement/gypsum board. 

bna, not available.

cLess than 0.5%, 50,000 m2, or 50 m3.

dIncludes lightweight concrete.

Sources: Wood Products Council 1999b, 2005b.

Research Paper FPL–RP–636

 1997 2003
19

be absorbed, we examined recent trends in market shares in 

1997 and 2003 for major sheathing and siding applications. 

In 2003, structural panels captured 94% of floor sheathing 

(Table 16). The share was down slightly from 1997. These 

percentages are higher than for new residential construction 

because data on the use of concrete slabs for additions were 

not available. Lumber sheathing accounted for the remaining 6% of sheathing material. 

Softwood plywood use for floor sheathing was nearly three 

times that of OSB, most likely due again to home owner’s 

preference for more traditional wood products.

We estimated market potential for structural panels in floor 

systems to be only 78 thousand m3 (88 million ft2) in 2003. 

The potential would be higher if data for concrete slab floors 

were available (Table 16). 

In the exterior wall sheathing market, structural panels captured an 86% share in 2003, up from 80% in 1997 

(Table 16). Foamed plastic was the second most preferred 

sheathing product at 5%. Lumber and all other products 

combined accounted for the remaining 9%. The use of 

foamed plastic has declined since 1997 and appears to be 

following the same trend exhibited in new residential construction.

Softwood plywood captured about two times the structural 

panel market share as did OSB in 2003, similar to floor 

sheathing shares.

Overall market potential for structural panels in wall 

sheathing was estimated to be nearly 176 thousand m3 

(200 million ft2) in 2003 (Table 16).

Structural panels captured 93% of the roof sheathing market 

in 2003, up 6% from 1997 (Table 16). Only small amounts 

of lumber and other miscellaneous sheathing products were 

used. Sheathing products for repairs and maintenance are 

often selected to match those already in the existing structure. Older houses typically use more lumber and plywood 

than OSB.

Softwood plywood was used three times more often than 

OSB for roof sheathing in 2003 (Table 16). 

Displacing other sheathing materials would result in an 

increase of 145 thousand m3 (165 million ft2) for structural 

panels (Table 16).

Wood products play a small but important role in the exterior siding market, with structural panels accounting for 6% 

of exterior siding, lumber 11%, and hardboard 2%. Much 

of this was most likely used to match existing siding on the 

house (Table 16). Vinyl and metal siding captured 60% in 

2003. Much of this was for re-siding existing houses. Masonry, stucco, and miscellaneous siding materials accounted 

for the remaining 21%. 

Nearly 95% of all structural panel siding used was softwood 

plywood, and OSB played a very minor role.

Since structural panels had a small market share in 2003, 

their potential market share is large. Capturing the 

lumber and hardboard markets would result in a gain of 

1.3 million m3 (1.5 billion ft2) (Table 16). Capturing the 

nonwood siding market, principally vinyl and metal, 

is unlikely, but would result in a gain of an additional 

8.4 million m3 (9.5 billion ft2). Overall, a potential market 

of 9.7 million m3 (11 billion ft2) exists for structural panel 

exterior siding in residential repair and remodeling.

In summary, we estimated maximum market potential for 

structural panel sheathing and siding use in residential repair 

and remodeling to be 10.1 million m3 (11.4 billion ft2) in 

2003 (Table 17). Exterior siding accounted for nearly all of 

the potential at 9.7 million m3. As with new residential construction, achieving the market potential for structural panels is largely dependent on convincing consumers to switch 

from nonwood siding products to structural panels.

Nonresidential Buildings 

Nonresidential construction is the third major component of 

the U.S. construction market for wood products. In 2003, 

the construction value of all nonresidential buildings was 

$283 billion. Low-rise buildings of four or fewer stories 

had construction valued at $269 billion (McKeever and 

others 2006). 

Nonresidential buildings are a diverse lot. Our analysis is 

limited to low-rise nonresidential buildings because highrise buildings with five or more stories are severely restricted by the building code from using wood as a framing or 

structural material.

Nonresidential buildings use a mixture of wood and nonwood building materials and building methods. The choices 

of materials and methods used are dependent on many factors including building type, location, and size, cost differentials between competing materials, state and local building codes, architectural styles, and others. Also, wood may 

be used in specific applications even though the buildings 

may not be primarily built with wood, or specific applications may use wood more frequently than other applications. 

The construction of new nonresidential buildings holds great 

potential for expanding the use of wood. In 2003, concrete 

and metal construction continued to dominate the nonresidential building construction market, accounting for nearly 

80% of total construction. In recent years, wood-framed 

construction (defined as buildings with predominately 

wood-framed exterior walls, regardless of materials used in 

other applications) has made modest gains against concreteand steel-framed construction. Additional gains are possible. 

The greatest potential for increasing wood market share 

in new nonresidential construction is to increase the share 

of wood-framed buildings at the expense of concrete- and 

Status and Trends: Profile of Structural Panels in the United States and Canada
20

steel-framed buildings. Realistically, however, very little 

wood will ever penetrate the foundation and ground-level 

nonresidential floor market. Also, if wood were to replace 

concrete and metal, the usage rate (volume of wood used per 

square feet of floor area) would not be expected to exceed 

current wood usage rates for applications that are principally 

built from wood. So market potential is defined for nonresidential construction as the incremental amounts of wood 

that could be used if all concrete- and steel-framed buildings were built like wood-framed buildings. For example, in 

2003, roof systems in small,3 wood-framed office buildings 

in the U.S. Midwest averaged about 2.50 m3 of structural 

panels per 100 m2 (2.63 ft2/ft2) of finished floor area. Roof 

systems in small, concrete-framed office buildings averaged 

0.75 m3 of structural panels per 100 m2 (0.79 ft2/ft2) of finished floor area. Thus, wood-framed office buildings used 

235% more structural panels per 100 m2 of floor area for 

roofs than concrete-framed buildings. The structural panel 

potential for roofs would then be the total finished floor area 

in concrete buildings multiplied by 1.75 m3. A realistic limit 

to the maximum potential would be the amounts of these 

products that would be used if concrete and metal upper story floors, exterior and interior walls, roofs, and siding were 

built principally with wood at current wood usage rates.

In 2003 an estimated 1.6 million m3 of sheathing materials 

and exterior siding were used in the construction of lowrise nonresidential buildings (Table 17). Of this 98% was 

structural panels. Roofs accounted for more than one-half at 

0.9 million m3 (1 billion ft2). This is because many concreteframed buildings have all wood or a combination of wood 

and steel roof systems. Exterior siding used just 2% of all 

structural panels.

An additional 5.1 million m3 (5.8 billion ft2) of structural 

panels could have been used in 2003 if all concrete- and 

steel-framed buildings had been built as wood-framed buildings (Table 17). Overall, less OSB is used in concrete- and 

steel-framed buildings than softwood plywood. But because 

OSB has a higher usage rate than softwood plywood in 

wood-framed buildings, market potential for OSB is greater 

by nearly 0.7 million m3 (0.8 billion ft2). Roofs had the 

greatest incremental market potential, accounting for 43% 

of total potential. Walls were a close second at 39%. 

These potentials have to be placed in context of the limitations imposed by building and fire codes and embedded user 

preferences. Building codes in the United States place limits 

on the use of wood framing especially in nonresidential 

buildings. Building area, height, and intended usage (“occupancy”) determine whether or not all, or part, of the building 

can be wood-framed and sheathed.

3Buildings with less than 4,645 m2 (50,000 ft2) of finished floor 

area.

Table 17—Wood products use and market potential for 

structural panels in low-rise nonresidential construction, 

2003

Sheathing application and 

building product

Amount

used (1,000 m3)

Structural panel

potential (1,000 m3)

Floors

 Structural panels

 Softwood plywood 128.0 314.3

 OSB 38.3 378.4

 Total 166.3 692.8

 Lumber na – 

 Nonstructural panelsa 0.9 4.3

 Concrete slab – – 

 Total 167.2 697.1

Wallsb

 Structural panels

 Softwood plywood 362.3 885.5

 OSB 91.3 1,110.2

 Total 453.6 1,995.7

 Lumber na – 

 All other 4.5 16.6

 None na – 

 Total 458.1 2,012.3 

Roofs

 Structural panels

 Softwood plywood 735.6 922.4

 OSB 175.2 1,273.1 

 Total 910.8 2,195.4

 Lumber na – 

 All other 23.0 18.9

 Total 933.8 2,214.4

Exterior siding

 Structural panels

 Softwood plywood 36.3 93.5

 OSB 9.6 128.0

 Total 45.9 221.5

 Lumber na –

 Hardboard 1.0 0.2

 All other na – 

 Total 46.9 221.7

Total, all applications

 Structural panels

 Softwood plywood 1,262.2 2,215.7

 OSB 314.4 2,889.7

 Total 1,576.6 5,105.3

 All other sheathing 29.3 40.1

 Total 1,606.0 5,145.4

na, not available.

Research Paper FPL–RP–636
21

The International Building Code is now the dominant model 

code in the United States. It defines area and height limits 

for each building by occupancy and by various types of 

structural assemblies. However, area and height limits can 

be substantially increased through the addition of automatic 

fire protection sprinklers, the use of firewalls to subdivide 

large buildings, and through the provision for substantial 

frontage to the building to enable easy firefighting access. 

Using the most aggressive assumptions regarding sprinklers, use of fire-rated assemblies and building frontages 

to capture the maximum code-allowable gain for wood, we 

determined that almost 64% of total constructed nonresidential value could have been framed in wood in 2003. This 

results in a potential incremental increase in structural panel 

consumption of nearly 3 million m3 (3.3 billion ft2). This is 

about 40% below the estimated structural panel market potential if all concrete- and steel-framed buildings were built 

similarly to wood-framed buildings, but is a more realistic 

objective.

Total Potential for Structural Panels

The construction of new single-family houses and multifamily apartment buildings, their repair and remodeling, and 

new low-rise nonresidential buildings hold potential for increasing the use of structural panels. In 2003 about 

23.3 million m3 (26.3 billion ft2) of structural panels 

were used for sheathing and exterior siding in these enduse markets. We estimated an additional potential 

28.6 million m3 (32.3 billion ft2) if all sheathing and siding 

applications that didn’t use structural panels in all residential 

construction were converted to structural panels, and if concrete- and steel-framed nonresidential buildings were built 

using the same techniques as wood-framed buildings 

(Table 18). 

Much of this potential is dependent on consumer preference, 

particularly in the single-family construction and residential 

repair and remodeling exterior siding markets. Low- and 

no-maintenance products dominate exterior siding and 

will probably continue to do so. It is difficult to determine 

what part of the maximum market potential for structural 

panels is realistically achievable, given the environment 

set by various building and fire codes and building types 

where wood use would be incompatible with the structure’s 

purpose. However, if through concerted promotion and 

research efforts, one-half of the residential floor, wall, and 

roof potential, one-fourth of the residential siding potential, 

and four-tenths of total nonresidential potential (based on 

building code analyses) had been achieved, structural panel 

consumption would have been an additional 9.5 million m3

(10.7 billion ft2) in 2003. 

Conclusions and Implications

This report is written at a time when the business cycle for 

housing and its dependent industries, such as plywood and 

OSB, is in the midst of a down phase. Four years of strong 

economic growth, stimulated by extraordinarily easy credit, 

have seen the prices of several classes of assets, such as real 

estate, inflate significantly. The growth in economic activity 

has also begun to push on the limits of capacity for some 

raw material sectors such as energy and metals. The resulting rise in prices in these sectors is beginning to spill over 

into the general economy in reaction to which central banks 

worldwide, and in the United States specifically, have been 

raising interest rates. This has begun to brake a credit-driven 

sector like housing, similar to the average response in five 

previous U.S. credit-tightening cycles (Fig. 20). 

In this cycle, interest rates as represented by 10-year U.S. 

Treasury notes had effectively touched bottom in June 2005 

and for the past 12 months have been gradually rising. By 

the standards of previous business cycles, as well as from 

hints by bank officials, the rate-boosting campaign should 

be nearing an end, but significant rate cuts appear to be still 

about 6 to 12 months away. As the illustration shows, the 

drag from the higher rates typically inhibits construction for 

6 or so months and then keeps activity at those depressed 

levels for 6 to 12 more. Only when rate-cutting begins anew 

does housing activity get restimulated. 

Given the strong dependency on construction described in 

previous sections, this means that consumption of structural 

panels will almost certainly decline in 2006 and also in 

2007, just as about 5.75 million to 7.6 million m3

Figure 20—Historical and current interest rate increases 

and one-family housing starts declines.

Table 18—Total market potential for structural panels, 

2003

Market potential (million m3)

Application

Residential construction

New 

single 

family

New 

multifamilyRepair & 

remodeling 

New nonresidential Total

Floors 3.0 0.4 0.1 0.7 4.2

Walls 2.0 0.1 0.2 2.0 4.3

Roofs 0.2 0.0 0.1 2.2 2.5

Siding 7.2 0.4 9.7 0.2 17.6

Total 12.4 0.9 10.1 5.1 28.6

Status and Trends: Profile of Structural Panels in the United States and Canada
22

Research Paper FPL–RP–636

(6.5 billion to 8 billion ft2) of new OSB capacity over the 

period 2006 to 2009 is set to come on line. The consequence 

will be excess capacity for several years and, as suggested 

by Figure 17, depressed margins. 

Given these prospects, industry participants have several 

options. One is to postpone or abandon some of the planned 

expansions. The ability to do this, however, is constrained 

because construction on many projects has already begun. 

On some others, contractual obligations have been entered 

into. By our estimates, eight plants, accounting for 

6 million m3 (6.7 billion ft2) of capacity, fall into these categories, leaving a relatively small fraction with the option to 

bail out. A related option is to convert some capacity from 

commodity sheathing to specialty or other products. At least 

two existing sheathing mills are slated for conversion to 

siding and another is being retrofitted with a press capable 

of making thicker panels destined to be made into oriented 

strand lumber (OSL). Additionally, one new facility’s design 

incorporates a press offering the option to make OSL. This 

could alleviate some of the excess capacity but almost 

certainly not enough to avoid an oversupply condition for 

several years.

The second option is to hope that enough older plants retire 

to offset the influx. Some of this is almost certain to happen. As of 2005, about 60% of U.S. plywood output was 

of sheathing-grade panels, which will bear the brunt of the 

impact of falling prices. Given the higher costs associated 

with plywood, some of this capacity would seem destined 

to exit. But plywood economics are buoyed by the growing 

need for LVL. In some respects, sheathing is a co-product of 

LVL-grade veneer production. The need for such material 

might motivate companies to keep plywood plants operating, much as some softwood sawmills continue in times of 

weak markets to supply pulp chips for more critical pulp 

operations.

That leaves a third option, which is to try to grow the market. As discussed in the section on potential for structural 

panels above, the greatest latent demand for panels is in 

siding. Siding is a competitive market where the amount of 

maintenance over a product’s lifetime, its installation costs, 

and its appearance are the main considerations. Vinyl, aluminum, steel, brick, and stone, as well as wooden boards, 

fiber-cement boards, hardboard, plywood, and OSB are the 

main siding products. 

On a cost continuum, wood-based panels occupy low- to 

mid-level positions along with vinyl and fiber-cement. 

Among structural panels, OSB siding is somewhat more 

cost competitive whereas plywood offers a more natural appearance. Both are vulnerable to moisture problems. Vinyl 

is regarded as the most maintenance-free product at this 

price range, and fiber-cement sidings also often come with 

a 50-year warranty. This suggests a need for research on 

the micro- and nanostructure of wood that would enable the 

production of natural wood fiber sidings with durability and 

moisture-resistant properties similar to vinyl- and cementbased products. Improvements in panel shrinkage properties 

could also open opportunities in other uses such as concrete 

forming.

Alternatively, North American producers could try to widen 

their marketing horizons to export markets. This is an opportunity in which currency exchange rates are critical. 

In part because of a large and persistent balance of trade 

deficit, the U.S. dollar has been weakening and is apt to 

weaken more as part of a necessary rebalancing of global 

trade flows. This affords an opportunity to U.S. producers to 

gain in overseas markets. Historically, the domestic market 

has been so large that U.S. producers have been content to 

focus solely on it, and most trade flows in recent years have 

been in the incoming direction on the import side of the 

ledger. North American and overseas panel size standards 

also differ, which means that a plant geared for 4- by 8-ft 

panels would have to sacrifice some volume to make smaller 

metric sizes. However, some far-seeing managers have built 

OSB plants with an extra size increment to allow seamless 

manufacturing of metric-sized panels without any loss in 

volume. Unfortunately, many of these plants were built in 

Canada, where the exchange rate trends are not as favorable. 

Still, the prospect of a weaker dollar should help reduce the 

trade imbalance in structural panels and reduce some supply 

pressure.

The trends described herein also have significant ramifications for forest management. The decline in plywood output 

means that the market for larger peeler logs from big trees 

has shrunk. Similar products that can be made from small 

pulpwood-sized bolts means that the price premium enjoyed 

by bigger trees may decrease, shifting the economically 

optimum tree-growing rotations to shorter intervals. On the 

other hand, woodland managers have a new and growing 

utilization option for their harder to use, low-density tree 

species. Aspen, red maple, yellow poplar, sweetgum, sycamore, box elder, and other fast-growing, pioneer-type tree 

species can now generate revenue from OSB plants seeking 

these kinds of materials as input to their product.

Literature Cited

Adair, Craig. 2004. Regional production and market outlook—structural panels and engineered wood products, 

2004–2009. APA Economics Report 170. Tacoma, WA: 

APA – The Engineered Wood Association. 59 p.

Faust, Timothy D.; Rice, J.T. 1987. Effects of variable glue 

application rate on bond quality and resin consumption. Forest Products Journal. 37(7–8):64–70.

Forest Resources Association. 2000–2004. Annual Pulpwood Statistics Summary Report. Rockville MD: Forest 

Resources Association.
23

Madison’s Canadian Lumber Reporter. 2004. Madison’s Canadian lumber directory–45th ed. Vancouver, British 

Columbia: Madison’s Canadian Lumber Reporter.

McKeever, David B.; Adair, Craig. 1998. Wood products 

used in new nonresidential building construction, 1995. Tacoma, WA: APA – The Engineered Wood Association. 60 p.

McKeever, David B.; Adair, Craig; O’Connor, Jennifer. 

2006. Wood products used in the construction of low-rise 

nonresidential buildings in the United States, 2003. Tacoma, 

WA: APA – The Engineered Wood Association. 65 p.

Random Lengths Publications, Inc. 2005. The big book. 

Eugene, OR: Random Lengths Publications, Inc.

RISI. 2005. Crow’s Weekly Market Report. Boston: RISI. 

http://www.risiinfo.com/corporate/

Schletz, Klaus-Peter. 2005. Mattenvorwärmung von Siempelkamp in der Praxis Erfolgreich. MDF-Supplement von 

Holz-Zentralblatt. DRW-Verlag Weinbrenner, LeinfeldenEchterdingen, Germany.

Spelter, Henry; McKeever, David B.; Durbak, Irene. 1997. 

Review of wood-based panel sector in United States and 

Canada. Gen. Tech. Rep. FPL–GTR–99. Madison, WI: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products 

Laboratory. 45 p.

Wood Products Promotion Council. 1996. Wood used in 

new residential construction 1995. Tacoma, WA: APA – The 

Engineered Wood Association. 95 p.

Wood Products Council. 1999a. Wood used in new residential construction—1998 and 1995. Tacoma, WA: APA – The 

Engineered Wood Association. 154 p.

Wood Products Council. 1999b. Wood products used in 

residential repair and remodeling—1997. Tacoma, WA: APA 

– The Engineered Wood Association. 146 p.

Wood Products Council. 2005a. Wood products used in new 

residential construction in the U.S. and Canada—2003. 

Tacoma, WA: APA – The Engineered Wood Association. 

102 p.

Wood Products Council. 2005b. Wood products used in 

residential repair and remodeling in the U.S. and Canada—

2003. Tacoma, WA: APA – The Engineered Wood 

Association. 76 p.

Status and Trends: Profile of Structural Panels in the United States and Canada

Appendix—U.S. and Canadian 

Structural Panel Plants by Region

The following tables and maps show North American (United States and Canada only) structural panel plant locations 

by capacity (in 1,000 m3) and ownership from 1990 to the 

present.
!

! !

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

! !

7

10 8

6

11

12 13

9

5

1

3

2

4

Plywood Plant Capacity (Thous. Cub. Met.)

! 50

! 233

! 417

! 600

OSB Plant Capacity (Thous. Cub. Met.)

! 50

! 233

! 417

! 600

Timber (cubic meters/hectare)

 0 to 25 25 to 50 50 to 70 70+

KM

300 200 100 0

U.S. Midwest

Timber Inventory and Plywood & OSB Capacity

(Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin)
U.S. Midwest (Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin)

Mill Company Former Name 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

I.D. Name or DBA State Town Capacity (1,000 m3)

Plywood Operating Mills

4 Bessemer Plywd Mi Bessemer 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53

TOTAL 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53

OSB Operating Mills

1 Weyerhaeuser Mi Grayling 266 266 266 319 327 336 345 363 389 398 398 407 425 443 451 456 4562 L-P Mi Newberry 71 106 106 106 106 106 111 115 115 115 115 111 115 115 119 119 1193 L-P Mi Sagola 319 319 319 319 319 310 310 332 332 332 332 332 332 336 341 345 345

11 Ainsworth Potlatch Mn Bemidji I 195 195 199 204 208 212 212 212 220 220 226 226 230 230 235 248 26612 Ainsworth Potlatch Mn Bemidji II 106 195 199 204 208 220 220 220 220 220 226 226 230 230 235 248 266

9 Ainsworth Potlatch Mn Cook 168 168 186 212 212 215 215 215 215 221 221 310 372 381 381 381 381

10 Ainsworth Potlatch Mn Gr Rapids 301 301 301 301 301 310 310 310 310 310 314 314 327 332 332 332 33213 Norbord Nexfor Mn Solway 230 230 230 239 239 266 294 310 327 327 327 336 345 385 389 389 398

8 L-P Mn Two-Harbors 115 115 115 115 115 119 119 119 119 119 119 119 124 124 128 133 1337 L-P Wi Hayward I 204 204 204 204 204 212 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 230 230 2306 L-P Wi Hayward II 204 204 204 204 204 212 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 230 230 2305 L-P Wi Tomahawk 106 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124

TOTAL 2177 2301 2328 2531 2567 2643 2703 2763 2814 2830 2845 2947 3067 3142 3195 3235 3279

TOTAL PLYWOOD AND OSB 2230 2354 2381 2584 2620 2697 2756 2816 2867 2883 2898 3000 3120 3195 3248 3288 3332

Employment

Plywood 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150OSB 1250 1250 1250 1380 1380 1390 1330 1350 1320 1320 1320 1320 1330 1510 1510 1560 1560Total employment 1350 1350 1350 1480 1480 1490 1430 1450 1470 1470 1470 1470 1480 1660 1660 1710 1710
1

!

2

!

Timber (cubic meters/hectare)

 0 to 25 25 to 50 50 to 70 70+

OSB Plant Capacity (Thous. Cub. Met.)

! 50

! 233

! 417

! 600

KM

150 100 50 0

U.S. Northeast

Timber Inventory and Plywood & OSB Capacity

(Maine)
U.S. Northeast (Maine)

Mill Company Former Name 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

I.D. Name or DBA State Town Capacity (1,000 m3)

OSB Closed Mills

L-P G-P Me Woodland 137 137 137 137 177 177 190 190 142 243 243 243 243 239 239 89

Operating Mills

1 Huber Me Easton 164 164 164 164 164 164 164 164 177 177 177 177 221 239 239 239 2392 L-P Me Houlton 164 164 177 177 217 230 230 230 230 230 239 239 239 243 248 248 248

TOTAL 465 465 478 478 558 571 584 584 549 650 659 659 704 721 726 575 487

TOTAL PLYWOOD AND OSB 465 465 478 478 558 571 584 584 549 650 659 659 704 721 726 575 487

Employment

OSB 380 380 380 380 380 380 380 380 380 380 380 380 380 380 380 260 260Total employment 380 380 380 380 380 380 380 380 380 380 380 380 380 380 380 260 260
!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

7

13

14 1

3

15

8 10

9

11

12

6

5

4

2

OSB Plant Capacity (Thous. Cub. Met.)

! 50

! 233

! 417

! 600

Plywood Plant Capacity (Thous. Cub. Met.)

! 50

! 233

! 417

! 600

Timber (cubic meters/hectare)

 0 to 25 25 to 50 50 to 70 70+

KM

150 100 50 0

U.S. South Central

Timber Inventory and Plywood & OSB Capacity

(Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee)
U.S. Southcentral (Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee)

Mill Company Former Name 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

I.D. Name or DBA State Town Capacity (1,000 m3)

Plywood Closed Mills

Weyerhaeuser Ms Philadelphia 75 75 75 75 115 115 89Weyerhaeuser Al Millport 111 115 115 115 115 128 140 140 140 140 140 142 147 37Weyerhaeuser McM-Bloedel Al Pine Hill 119 122 124 142 142 142 142 142 142 142 142 142 142 142

Operating Mills

6 Scotch Al Fulton 235 235 235 235 251 257 257 257 257 257 257 266 266 266 266 266 2665 G-P Al Peterman/Monroe 274 274 274 274 274 274 274 274 274 274 274 274 274 274 274 274 2744 I-P Union-Camp Al Chapman 186 186 186 186 212 221 221 221 221 221 221 226 226 226 226 226 2262 G-P Al Talladega 274 283 289 289 289 289 289 289 289 289 289 289 285 285 285 285 285

11 G-P Ms Taylorsville 305 305 305 305 323 323 323 323 323 323 323 323 314 314 314 314 314

8 Hood Indust Delta Pine Ms Beaumont 124 124 124 155 161 178 178 150 178 178 177 177 177 177 177 177 177

12 G-P Ms Louisville 258 258 258 258 258 258 258 258 258 258 258 133 257 257 257 25710 G-P Ms Gloster 248 248 248 248 248 257 261 261 261 261 261 266 252 252 252 26 252

9 Hood Indust I-P Ms Wiggins 195 195 181 181 181 187 187 199 199 199 199 208 208 208 208 208 208

TOTAL 2405 2420 2415 2464 2456 2629 2645 2604 2543 2543 2542 2312 2423 2437 2259 2032 2259

OSB Operating Mills

1 L-P Al Hanceville 236 310 310 310 310 310 319 319 319 323 323 345 3457 L-P Al Thomasville3 Norbord Al Huguley 221 420 425 443 443 443

14 Norbord Ms Guntown 89 310 363 363 363 363 363 363 363 381 385 38513 G-P Ms Grenada 266 266 266 266 266 266 266 266 274 274 274 274 310 332 332 332 33215 Huber Tn Spring City 195 319 319 319 319 327 327 345 345 345

TOTAL 266 266 266 266 502 664 885 1133 1266 1266 1274 1496 1739 1770 1823 1850 1850

TOTAL PLYWOOD AND OSB 2670 2686 2681 2729 2958 3293 3530 3736 3808 3808 3816 3807 4162 4207 4082 3882 4108

Employment

Plywood 3500 3500 3500 3500 3300 3600 3600 3600 3400 3400 3400 3100 3400 3100 2900 2600 2900OSB 120 120 120 120 250 370 370 500 500 500 500 630 630 630 630 630 630Total employment 3620 3620 3620 3620 3550 3970 3970 4100 3900 3900 3900 3730 4030 3730 3530 3230 3530
!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

26

6

2

4

12

11

7

13

20

15

18

27

22 24

21

25

1

5

3

8 9

10

16

14

17

19

23

OSB Plant Capacity (Thous. Cub. Met.)

! 50

! 233

! 417

! 600

Plywood Plant Capacity (Thous. Cub. Met)

! 50

! 233

! 417

! 600

Timber (cubic meters/hectare)

 0 to 25 25 to 50 50 to 70 70+

KM

300 200 100 0

U.S. Southeast

Timber Inventory and Plywood & OSB Capacity

(Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia)
U.S. Southeast (Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia)

Mill Company Former Name 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

I.D. Name or DBA State Town Capacity (1,000 m3)

Plywood Closed Mills

Weyerhaeuser Nc Jacksonville 137G-P Gt Northern Ga Cedar Springs 142 142 142Weyerhaeuser Nc Plymouth 97 97 97 97 97 111 124 80Willamette B-C Nc Moncure 97 97 97 97 119 119 119 119 119 44I-P Champion Int Ga Waycross 89 89 87 133 137 133 133 133 133 142 128G-P Sc Russelville 243 243 243 243 243 243 243 243 243 243 243

Operating Mills

3 Coastal Fl Havana 127 126 135 144 142 168 177 177 186 186 186 186 186 190 190 190 1901 G-P Fl Hawthorne 243 243 243 243 257 288 326 334 332 332 332 332 327 327 327 327 3275 S Veneer Prod Springfield Ga Fitzgerald 40 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49

10 G-P GA Kraft Ga Madison 274 274 310 319 319 319 319 324 324 324 324 324 325 325 325 325 325

9 G-P Ga Monticello 274 274 274 274 230 239 239 239 239 239 239 239 307 307 307 307 3078 G-P Ga Warm Springs 261 261 261 261 261 301 301 301 301 301 301 301 301 301 301 301 301

19 G-P Nc Dudley 226 227 227 243 292 301 301 301 301 301 301 301 324 324 324 324 32417 G-P Nc Whiteville 248 248 248 248 270 274 274 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 28816 Chester Wood Weyerhaeuser Sc Chester 208 212 212 212 212 212 212 212 212 212 212 212 212 212 212 212 21214 G-P Sc Prosperity 199 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 221 221 221 221 21823 G-P Va Emporia 261 266 281 281 281 281 281 281 281 281 281 283 297 297 297 297 297

TOTAL 3127 3018 3075 3014 3077 3245 3314 3297 3224 3159 3101 2732 2837 2842 2842 2842 2838

OSB Closed Mills

L-P Va Dungannon 106 106 106 106 106 111 111Langboard Ga Quitman 150 159 164 164 190 190 168 186 187 187 187 187 199 199 204 204

Operating Mills

2 G-P Fl Hosford 199 443

11 L-P Ga Athens 283 283 283 283 283 288 288 288 288 310 319 323 323 323 341 345 34512 Huber Ga Commerce 253 253 253 253 253 253 253 266 266 266 292 301 301 301 301 354 354

6 Norbord I-P Ga Cordele 243 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 288 323 354 354 3544 Langboard Ga Quitman 354

18 G-P Nc Dudley 111 111 111 124 124 124 168 168 168 168 168 168 168 168 168 168 16820 Weyerhaeuser Nc Elkin 199 199 204 221 230 230 257 291 291 291 291 291 296 310 310 319 31921 L-P Nc Roxboro 292 332 336 336 354 376 398 398 398 398 398

7 Grant Sc Fairfax/Allendale 22

13 Norbord Sc Joanna/Kinards15 Grant Sc Manning/Clarendon25 G-P Va Brookneal 239 288 305 319 319 319 336 345 354 354 35424 Huber Va Crystal Hill 221 301 301 310 319 319 319 336 336 389 407 40722 G-P Va Skippers 266 266 292 292 292 309 309 309 314 314 314 314 314 314 314 314 31426 G-P Wv Mt Hope 183 314 314 314 314 314 314 314 332 332 332 33227 Weyerhaeuser Wv Sutton/Heaters 168 420 434 443 496 513 513 531 540 558 558

TOTAL 1612 3002 3064 3126 3192 3631 5015 6291 6729 6831 6991 7150 7296 7469 7686 8107 8823

TOTAL PLYWOOD AND OSB 4738 6020 6139 6140 6269 6876 8330 9587 9953 9990 10092 9882 10133 10311 10528 10948 11662

Employment

Plywood 4300 4100 4100 3900 4000 4000 4000 3900 3700 3500 3500 3300 3300 3400 3400 3400 3400OSB 1060 1060 1060 1060 1070 1320 1740 1610 1590 1590 1720 1720 1720 1720 1720 1840 1860Total employment 5360 5160 5160 4960 5070 5320 5740 5510 5290 5090 5220 5020 5020 5120 5120 5240 5260
!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

22

11

16

15

17 12

10

28

9

7

6

4

5

1

26 27

23

24

13

19

18

14

21

20

2

3

8

25

Timber (cubic meters/hectare)

 0 to 25 25 to 50  50 to 70 70+

Plywood Plant Capacity (1000 Cub. Met.)

! 50

! 233

! 417

! 600

OSB Plant Capacity (1000 Cub. Met.)

! 50

! 233

! 417

! 600

KM

150 100 50 0

U.S. Southwest 

Timber Inventory and Plywood & OSB Capacity

(Oklahoma, Arkansas, Eastern Texas, Louisiana)
U.S. Southwest (Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana)

Mill Company Former Name 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

I.D. Name or DBA State Town Capacity (1,000 m3)

Plywood Closed Mills

L-P Angelina Tx Lufkin, Keltys 168 168 142 142 150 155 155 111Willamette La Taylor 177 186 186 186 186 186 186 124L-P Owens Illinois Tx Jasper 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 31Plum Creek Riverwood La Joyce 173 173 175 175 175 186 186 186 124Temple Tx Pineland 177 221 221 221 221 221 235 235 235 235 235LP G-P Tx New Waverly 266 266 266 266 266 266 266 266 243 243 243Willamette Santiam La Ruston 133 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 20Weyerhaeuser Ar Dierks 106 111 111 111 158 158 158 164 164 164 164 89G-P L-P Tx Bon Wier 243 243 243 243 243 243 243 243 243 243 243 243 142G-P L-P (form G-P) La Urania 239 239 239 239 239 212 212 212 177 177 177 177 177

Weyerhaeuser Ok Wright Cty 106 106 142 142 142 146 146 173 173 173 173 173 146 146 146 110

Operating Mills

1 Hunt Plywd La Natalbany 133 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 1374 BC VanPly La Oakdale 230 230 252 252 264 266 266 266 266 266 221 221 221 177 177 168 1685 Martco La Chopin 1 133 292 292 292 292 292 292 292 292 292 3196 Hunt Plywd La Pollock 102 97 97 97 119 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 1247 Weyerhaeuser Willamette La Dodson 173 173 173 173 173 197 197 197 197 197 197 197 197 197 197 197 1979 I-P La Springhill 239 239 243 243 266 283 283 283 283 283 283 283 283 283 310 332 332

10 G-P L-P (form G-P) La Logansport 212 221 221 221 221 212 212 212 212 212 212 212 221 221 221 221 221

11 Weyerhaeuser Willamette La Zwolle 164 164 169 169 199 200 200 200 133 212 212 212 212 212 212 212 21212 BC VanPly La Florien 261 263 263 263 270 274 266 266 266 266 274 274 274 252 252 252 25215 G-P L-P Tx Cleveland 266 266 266 266 266 230 199 266 266 266 266 266 288 288 288 288 28816 I-P Champion Int Tx Camden 279 279 279 279 279 310 310 319 319 319 319 319 319 319 319 319 31917 I-P Champion Int Tx Corrigan 264 266 266 266 266 292 292 301 301 301 301 301 292 292 292 292 29222 Weyerhaeuser Willamette Ar Emerson 164 168 170 170 177 208 208 208 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 21723 G-P Ar Crossett #1 279 279 279 279 292 292 292 292 292 292 292 301 301 301 301 310 31024 G-P Ar Crossett #2 283 283 283 283 301 305 305 283 288 288 288 288 288 292 292 301 30126 G-P Ar Fordyce 252 252 252 252 252 270 270 270 279 279 279 279 274 274 274 274 27427 I-P Ar Gurdon 230 230 243 243 252 252 252 252 252 252 252 252 252 266 310 325 32528 Weyerhaeuser Ar Mt Pine 106 106 106 106 142 159 159 159 164 168 177 243 248 248 248 248 248

TOTAL 5557 5653 5712 5712 5944 6075 6180 6225 5799 5760 5733 5120 4906 4538 4609 4619 4536

O S B Closed Mills

L-P Tx New Waverly 80 80 80 80 80 44 44L-P Tx Urania 97 89 89 89 102 119 119 44L-P Tx Corrigan 124 119 119 119 119 133 133 124

Operating Mills

2 Martco La LeMoyen 168 195 212 230 230 230 230 257 257 257 266 310 310 310 310 332 3323 Martco La Oakdale 69

8 Weyerhaeuser Willamette La Arcadia 177 283 288 310 310 310 310 310 327 327 327

13 L-P Tx Jasper 18 310 372 385 398 398 398 398 398 398 39814 L-P Tx Silsbee 71 283 283 283 301 301 301 301 301 301 301 305 305 266 266 26618 Norbord I-P Tx Nacogdoches 168 168 168 177 212 212 212 212 248 266 266 283 283 283 292 336 34319 L-P Tx Carthage 221 354 376 385 398 398 398 398 398

20 Norbord I-P Tx Jefferson 266 296 310 310 310 327 327 327 354 354 35421 Huber Ok Broken Bow 133 487 531

25 G-P Ar Fordyce 363 389 407 443 443 443

TOTAL 637 721 951 978 1027 1040 1500 1828 1996 2182 2226 2677 2721 2739 2921 3340 3461

TOTAL PLYWOOD AND OSB 6194 6375 6663 6690 6970 7115 7680 8053 7795 7941 7959 7797 7627 7277 7530 7959 7997

Employment

Plywood 8400 8400 8400 8400 8400 8400 8800 8600 7900 7700 7700 7100 6700 6300 6200 6200 5900OSB 660 790 790 790 790 790 1170 930 950 950 950 1090 1090 1070 1230 1230 1390Total employment 9060 9190 9190 9190 9190 9190 9970 9530 8850 8650 8650 8190 7790 7370 7430 7430 7290
!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

8

13

21

16

17

14

15

4

2

7

9

12

11

18

10

19

20

5

3

6

1

Plywood Plant Capacity (Thous. Cub. Met.)

! 50

! 233

! 417

! 600

Timber (cubic meters/hectare)

 0 to 25 25 to 50 50 to 70 70+

KM

150 100 50 0

U.S. West (Coast)

Timber Inventory and Plywood & OSB Capacity

(Washington, Oregon)
U.S. West (California, Oregon, Washington)

Mill Company Former Name 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

I.D. Name or DBA State Town Capacity (1,000 m3)

Plywood Closed Mills

G-P Smith Wood Prod Or Coquille 89White Plywd Cascade Plywd Or Lebanon 221Murphy Plywd West Door & Plywd Or Milwaukie 27Bohemia Or Culp Creek 44Sun Plywd Weyerhauser Or North Bend 66Astoria Plywd Or Astoria 115 115Bohemia Drain Plywd Or Drain 119 119Willamette Indust Santiam Lumber Or Lebanon 142 71Kogap Mfg Or Medford 310 310Stevenson Co-Ply Stevenson Plywd Wa Stevenson 111 111 111Pugent Sound Plywd Wa Tacoma 124 124 80Custom Plywood Corp Anacortes Veneer Wa Anacortes 127 127 124Seneca Sawmill US Plywd Or Roseburg 181 177 177Roseburg Interstate Container Ca Red Bluff 102 102 102Miller Redwood Bate Lumber Or Merlin 80 80 85 85Willamette Indust I-P Or Vaughn 115 115 124 133Medford Corp Or Medford 204 204 124 124Pac Western Forest Ind Crown Zellerbach Or St. Helens 195 195 195 195RHD Elma Elma Plywd Wa Elma 71 81 81 81 81Stone Forest Indust Hub City Plywd Or Albany 177 177 177 177 177Linn Forest Products Mid-Plywd Or Sweet Home 66 66 66 66 66Willamette Indust Santiam Lumber Or Sweet Home 155 155 155 155 155Brand-S Leading Plywd Or Philomath 124 124 124 124 124Textured FP Ellison's Indust Wa Washougal 18 18 18 18 18 80 80Hardel Mutual Plywd Wa Olympia 133 133 133 127 161 143 80Fort Vancouver Plywd Vancouver Plywd Wa Vancouver 142 142 142 115 106 97 22Timber Products Grants Pass Plywd Or Grants Pass 117 117 89 89 106 80 89BC Or White City 142 142 142 142 142 173 180 180Lane Plywd Willamette Plywd Or Eugene 164 164 164 164 93 93 93 93Roseburg #1 Or Dillard 188 188 188 188 188 188 188 188 188 188Willamette Indust Willamette Valley Lum Or Dallas 168 168 168 168 133 133 134 134 134 134 106Linnton Plywd Assn Or Portland 96 96 89 66 42 53 66 66 66 66 66 66Fourply Veneer Prod Or Grants Pass 133 133 106 106 106 106 106 71 71 71 71 71 27Roseburg #3 Umpqua Plywd Or Green 195 195 177 177 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 170Weyerhaeuser Willamette Indust Or Foster 124 124 124 124 127 124 86 86 86 86 89 89 89 89 89

Operating Mills

14 Roseburg #2 Or Dillard 159 159 168 168 173 173 173 173 173 173 173 173 173 173 173 17317 Timber Products US Forest Indust Or Grants Pass 159 159 159 155 155 152 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 19 150 150 15013 Roseburg #6 Coquille Plywd Or Coquille 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 19921 Pacific Wood Lam South Coast Lum Or Brookings 133 133 111 106 111 111 111 124 124 124 124 128 128 128 128 128 12819 Med-Ply Medford Veneer & Plywd Or White City 106 93 106 106 106 111 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106

8 Emerald FP Snellstrom Lumber Or Eugene 133 133 133 138 168 177 177 177 177 177 177 177 177 221 221 221 212

12 Murphy Sutherlin Plywd Or Sutherlin 149 127 127 127 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 66 11118 TImber Products White City Plywd #1 Or White City 53 53 58 69 66 72 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 78 78

9 McKenzie For Prod Springfield For Prod Or Springfield 168 177 195 212 230 221 196 196 196 196 196 196 196 196 196 196 196

10 Rosboro Lumber Or Springfield 89 89 89 89 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 6616 Superior Plywd Glendale Plywd Or Glendale 186 186 186 186 195 195 168 168 168 168 168 168 168 168 168 168 168

6 Freres Lumber North Santiam Plywd Or Mill City 159 150 150 159 159 159 159 143 119 142 159 168 177 186 199 208 208

20 BC Elk Lumber Or Medford 288 288 288 286 310 319 338 341 177 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 34111 Weyerhaeuser Willamette Indust Or Springfield 111 111 111 111 112 111 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 10815 Roseburg #4 Or Riddle 416 416 363 381 381 381 381 381 381 381 381 381 381 381 381 381 381

7 Eagle Veneer Or Harrisburg 31 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 49 49 49 495 Hardel Mutual Plywd Wa Chehalis 53 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111

1 Mt Baker Plywd Wa Bellingham 31 62 62 62 62 62 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 664 Hoquiam Plywd Woodlawn Plywd Wa Hoquiam 93 93 89 80 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 752 K-Ply Peninsula Plywd Wa Pt Angeles 71 71 53 53 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 443 Olympic Panel Prod Simpson Timber Wa Shelton 111 111 124 148 146 146 146 146 146 146 146 146 146 146 146 143 134

TOTAL 7234 6909 6064 5500 4891 4421 4246 3994 3591 3777 3582 3489 3387 3251 3226 3079 3105

TOTAL PLYWOOD AND OSB 7234 6909 6064 5500 4891 4421 4246 3994 3591 3777 3582 3489 3387 3251 3226 3079 3105

Employment

Total employment 13200 12100 11200 9900 8600 7800 7700 7200 6500 6300 6100 5900 5600 5300 5300 5300 5300
!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

1

3

2

4 5

6

9

7

8

Plywood Plant Capacity (Thous. Cub. Met.)

! 50

! 233

! 417

! 600

Timber (cubic meters/hectare)

 0 to 25 25 to 50 50 to 70 70+

KM

300 200 100 0

U.S. West (Interior)

Timber Inventory and Plywood & OSB Capacity

(Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana)
U.S. West - Inland (California, Colorado, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Washington)

Mill Company Former Name 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

I.D. Name or DBA State Town Capacity (1,000 m3)

Plywood Closed Mills

Roseburg Interstate Contain Ca Red Bluff 102 102 102Warm Spr FP Jefferson Plywd Or Warm Springs 75 75 75Crown Pacific Brooks-Willamette Or Redmond 159 159 159 155 133 133 115Potlach Corp Id Pierce/Jaype 133 133 133 133 133 133 137 137 137 137 75Collins Pine Weyerhaeuser Or Klamath Falls 111 111 142 142 146 150 150 150 150 150 150 13BC Id Emmett 150 150 159 159 164 177 159 159 159 159 159 97Stimson Lum J Neils Lumber Mt Libby 133 133 133 133 146 146 146 146 146 146 146 146 146

Operating Mills

6 Potlach Corp St Maries Plywd Id St. Maries 127 127 133 133 133 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 128 124 1248 Plum Creek C & C Plywd Corp Mt Kalispell 106 106 115 117 133 131 131 131 131 131 131 142 146 159 159 159 1597 Plum Creek Plum Creek Lum Mt Columbia Falls 133 133 133 143 135 151 151 151 151 151 151 151 151 151 151 151 1519 Stimson Lum Champ Int Corp Mt Bonner 310 310 310 310 310 142 142 142 142 142 142 142 142 142 142 97 971 BC Or Elgin 140 140 140 140 150 156 161 165 165 165 165 165 165 165 165 165 1655 BC Wa Kettle Falls 168 177 186 190 204 204 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 2082 SDS Lum Co Bingen Plywd Wa Bingen 71 71 71 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 53 53 53 53 534 Omak Wood Prod Bico-Kinzua Wa Omak 159 159 133 133 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 97 97 97 973 Yakima Res BC Wa Yakima 142 142 142 142 142 142 122 173 84 84 44 142 142 142 142

TOTAL 2218 2227 2264 2095 2189 2065 2024 1963 1874 1874 1728 1270 1195 1257 1245 1197 1197

OSB Closed Mills

L-P Co Kremmling 111 106L-P Id Chilco 119 111 111 111 111 133 133L-P Co Montrose 106 106 106 106 128 128 128 128 128 128 128 128 53TOTAL 336 323 217 217 239 261 261 128 128 128 128 128 53

TOTAL PLYWOOD AND OSB 2554 2550 2481 2312 2428 2326 2285 2091 2003 2003 1857 1398 1248 1257 1245 1197 1197

Employment

Plywood 3800 3800 3800 3400 3400 3200 3000 2900 2900 2900 2400 1900 2100 1700 1700 1700 1700OSB 330 330 220 220 220 220 220 100 100 100 100 100 70Total employment 4130 4130 4020 3620 3620 3420 3220 3000 3000 3000 2500 2000 2170 1700 1700 1700 1700
!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

! ! ! !

!

! 9

8

5

7

1

4

3

11

17

16

18 19

13

12

10

14

15

2

6

OSB Plant Capacity (Thous. Cub. Met.)

! 50

! 250

! 450

! 650

Plywood Plant Capacity (Thous. Cub. Met.)

! 50

! 250

! 450

! 650

KM

600 400 200 0

Eastern Canada

Plywood & OSB Capacity

(Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick)
Canada East (Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick)

Mill Company Former Name 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

I.D. Name or DBA Prov Town Capacity (1,000 m3)

Plywood Operating Mills

6 Weyerhaeuser MacMillan Bloed Ont Nipigon 23 23 23 34 34 34 34 34 34 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 352 Weyerhaeuser Saskfor McMillan Sas Hudson Bay 71 71 71 75 73 75 75 75 75 75 75 91 91 91 91 91 91

TOTAL 94 94 94 109 107 109 109 109 109 111 111 127 127 127 127 127 127

OSB Closed Mills

Norbord Que LaSarre I 89 89 89 89 89 89 27Weyerhaeuser Sas Huds Bay I 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80Weyerhaeuser Sas Huds Bay II 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 53

Operating Mills

19 Weyerhaeuser Nbr Miramichi 195 119 48 250 305 336 336 336 336 336 358 358 35815 L-P Que Chambord 230 195 93 243 266 327 330 443 443 443 443 443 443 443 416 41614 Norbord Que Val d'or 159 159 159 177 177 212 212 237 237 239 239 239 266 283 283 283 28317 L-P Que St Michel 252 252 257 270 270 270 336 451 451 434 443 443 443 443 443 443 42113 Norbord Que LaSarre II 66 177 239 248 248 248 248 266 310 310 310 31016 L-P Que Maniwaki 310 487 531 531 531 531 531 531 531 53118 Jolina Capital Que St Georges 142 142 142 142 142 142 177 177 177 177 177 177 195 221 239 239 23911 Grant FP Ont Englehart I 177 177 177 177 195 195 239 239 239 239 239 239 243 248 257 257 25710 Grant FP Ont Timmins 80 80 80 177 177 177 400 196 233 460 460 460 460 460 460 460 460

5 Ainsworth Ont Barwick 221 354 354 354 354 354 381 389 389 389

9 Weyerhaeuser Ont Wawa 142 341 341 354 363 372 381 389 398 407 407 407

12 Grant FP Ont Englehart II 279 279 279 283 310 310 381 381 381 381 381 381 389 398 416 416 416

8 Kruger Ont Longlac I 120 120 120 120 124 142 142 142 142 142 142 150 150 150 150 150 1507 Kruger Ont Longlac II 04 L-P Man Swan River 292 352 352 376 398 398 416 434 460 465 4653 Weyerhaeuser Sas Hudson Bay 221 487 504 504 504 504 5041 Tolko Indust Sas Meadow lake 177 531 531 531

TOTAL 1908 1797 1488 1713 1912 2195 3284 4052 4588 4907 5168 5452 5438 5717 6182 6160 6138

TOTAL PLYWOOD AND OSB 2002 1891 1581 1822 2019 2304 3393 4160 4697 5018 5279 5578 5565 5844 6308 6286 6264

Employment

Plywood 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400OSB 1440 1340 1300 1330 1330 1520 1920 2230 2250 2250 2410 2420 2360 2270 2270 2280 2280Total employment 1740 1640 1600 1630 1630 1820 2220 2530 2650 2650 2810 2820 2760 2670 2670 2680 2680
! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

18

17

8

14

13

12

24

23

19

16

20

21

6

9

1

7

10

11

15

4

2

3

5

22

OSB Plant Capacity (Thous. Cub. Met.)

! 50

! 250

! 450

! 650

Plywood Plant Capacity (Thous. Cub. Met.)

! 50

! 250

! 450

! 650

KM

300 200 100 0

Western Canada

Plywood & OSB Capacity

(British Columbia, Alberta)
Canada West (British Columbia, Alberta)

Mill Company Former Name 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

I.D. Name or DBA Prov Town Capacity (1,000 m3)

Plywood Closed Mills

Crestbrook Alb Fort MacLeod 26Weyerhaeuser MacMillan Bloedel BC Vancouver 106Weyerhaeuser MacMillan Bloedel BC Port Alberni 159Victoria Plywd BC Victoria 62 62Fletcher Challenge BC New Westminster 106 106Evans FP BC Vancouver 137 137West Coast Plywd BC Vancouver 168 168 133Slocan Cantree BC New Westminster 133 133 115 97 97 97 97 97 97

Operating Mills

22 West Fraser Zeidler Alb Edmonton 106 106 124 150 155 155 177 177 177 204 212 221 235 235 235 235 235

3 Tolko Indust Riverside FP BC Armstrong 159 159 177 195 195 195 199 199 199 210 207 208 257 266 350 350 350

11 Canfor N Central Plywds BC Prince George 150 150 150 155 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 159 168 168 168 168

7 Ainsworth BC Savona 49 49 58 71 71 66 66 112 115 127 127 127 127 127 131 131 1311 Richmond Plywd BC Richmond 177 177 171 177 209 209 209 209 209 209 133 209 168 168 165 165 165

10 West Fraser Weldwood BC Quesnel 146 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 168 178 178 178 178 178 178 178

9 West Fraser Weldwood BC Williams Lake 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 159 159 159 159 166 166 1662 Tolko Indust Riverside FP BC Kelowna 124 111 111 111 111 111 124 128 128 127 133 133 133 133 138 138 1384 Federated Co-op BC Canoe 84 84 89 89 96 96 96 96 96 96 64 66 97 97 97 97 976 Tolko BC Heffley Cr/Kamloo 133 133 133 106 106 146 146 146 146 146 146 146 146 146 165 165 1655 L-P Evans FP BC Golden 142 142 135 135 135 135 135 66 66 80 85 89 106 106 112 112 112

15 Canfor Slocan BC Fort Nelson 106 133 159 159 165 165 165 172 175 235 246 246 267 267 267 267 267

TOTAL 2428 2155 1859 1749 1794 1829 1869 1858 1865 1906 1841 1933 2033 2051 2174 2174 2174

OSB Operating Mills

12 L-P BC Dawson Creek 305 319 319 319 319 319 319 319 319 319 319 319 327 327 345 345 34524 Weyerhaeuser Alb Edson 266 266 266 266 292 288 288 288 327 327 336 341 345 354 381 381 38123 Weyerhaeuser Alb Drayton 230 235 310 310 310 310 310 310 313 313 313 313 319 327 345 345 34521 Tolko Indust Weyerhaeuser Alb Slave Lake 97 124 177 166 186 186 186 195 195 195 204 204 212 212 212

8 Ainsworth BC 100 Mile House 89 310 310 323 323 323 332 336 363 376 376 376 376

17 Ainsworth Alb Gr Prairie I 398 478 482 484 496 513 566 566 580 580 58019 Tolko Indust Alb High Prairie 354 420 420 434 482 496 496 504 602 602 60214 Canfor Slocan BC Ft Nelson 221 376 381 381 416 460 469 500 500 504 56216 Footner FP Alb High Level 27 266 531 708 708 708 717

13 Peace Valley OSB Canfor L-P BC Ft St John 60 54920 Tolko Indust Alb Slave Lake 018 Ainsworth Alb Gr Prairie II 0

TOTAL 898 819 894 1018 1186 1392 2385 2699 2751 2775 2915 3238 3620 3867 4049 4114 4668

TOTAL PLYWOOD AND OSB 3327 2974 2752 2767 2980 3221 4254 4557 4616 4682 4757 5172 5653 5919 6223 6288 6842

Employment

Plywood 4800 4200 3200 3200 3200 3200 3300 3300 3400 3300 3300 3300 3300 3300 3300 3300 3300OSB 610 470 470 610 740 740 1130 1130 1150 1150 1300 1300 1300 1290 1330 1450 1450Total employment 5410 4670 3670 3810 3940 3940 4430 4430 4550 4450 4600 4600 4600 4590 4630 4750 4750