Mineral Commodity Profiles—Asbestos

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Circular 1255–KK
Mineral Commodity Profiles—Asbestos

By Robert L. Virta

Circular 1255–KK

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

Gale A. Norton, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

P. Patrick Leahy, Acting Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2005

For product information:

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

For more information on the USGS--the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, 

natural hazards, and the environment:

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to 

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Virta, R.L., 2005, Mineral commodity profiles—Asbestos: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1255–KK, 56 p.
iii 

Contents 

Overview .........................................................................................................................................................1 

Historical background ..................................................................................................................................2 

Chemical identity ...........................................................................................................................................8 

Serpentine asbestos ............................................................................................................................8 

Amphibole asbestos.............................................................................................................................8 

Commercial forms, grades, shapes, and specifications.........................................................................9 

Amosite, chrysotile, and crocidolite..................................................................................................9 

Grades, shapes, and specifications..................................................................................................9 

Grade specifications for products...................................................................................................11 

Asbestos-cement products .....................................................................................................11

Asbestos paper and millboard ................................................................................................11 

Asphalt products .......................................................................................................................12 

Caulking compounds and nonbituminous sealants and coatings.....................................12 

Friction materials.......................................................................................................................12 

Gaskets........................................................................................................................................12 

Plastics........................................................................................................................................12 

Textiles ........................................................................................................................................13 

Physical, chemical, and engineering properties....................................................................................13 

Physical properties ............................................................................................................................13 

Chemical properties...........................................................................................................................13 

Uses ...............................................................................................................................................................15 

Present uses........................................................................................................................................15 

Patterns of use....................................................................................................................................16 

Historical end-use consumption......................................................................................................16 

Asbestos substitutes...................................................................................................................................19 

Dissipative uses...........................................................................................................................................19 

Sources .........................................................................................................................................................19 

Principal deposits...............................................................................................................................19 

Origin and modes of geologic occurrence.....................................................................................20 

Reserves and resources ............................................................................................................................21 

Mining and processing...............................................................................................................................23 

Exploration techniques......................................................................................................................23 

Mining...................................................................................................................................................24 

Processing...........................................................................................................................................24 

Coproducts and byproducts ......................................................................................................................25 

Recycling ......................................................................................................................................................25 

Environmental impact .................................................................................................................................26 
iii 

Industry structure ........................................................................................................................................26 

Producers.............................................................................................................................................26 

Consumers ...........................................................................................................................................27 

Employment .........................................................................................................................................35 

Market-size and reach................................................................................................................................36 

Prices.............................................................................................................................................................40 

Supply and demand.....................................................................................................................................41 

Components of supply........................................................................................................................41 

International trade..............................................................................................................................42 

Strategic considerations ............................................................................................................................43 

Sustainability ................................................................................................................................................43 

Economic factors.........................................................................................................................................44 

Production and transportation .........................................................................................................44 

Energy requirements..........................................................................................................................45 

Environmental, health, and safety issues ................................................................................................47 

Liability...........................................................................................................................................................48 

Tariffs and taxes ..........................................................................................................................................49 

Tariffs....................................................................................................................................................49 

Depletion provisions...........................................................................................................................49 

Government programs ................................................................................................................................49 

Outlook...........................................................................................................................................................49 

References cited..........................................................................................................................................49 

Appendix—Definitions of reserves, reserve base, and resources.....................................................56 

Figures 

1. Estimated world production of asbestos in 2003..............................................................................1 

2. World consumption of asbestos, by region.......................................................................................3 

3. U.S. apparent consumption of asbestos from 1900 to 2003............................................................3 

4. World production of asbestos, by type, from 1900 to 2003 .............................................................4 

5. World production of asbestos, by country, from 1900 to 2003 .......................................................5 

6. Estimated world consumption of asbestos in 2003 ........................................................................16 

7. Major U.S. asbestos end uses in 1973, 1980, and 2003..................................................................17 

8. World asbestos resources.................................................................................................................20 

9. Generalized block caving method used in underground mining of asbestos ...........................24 

10. Generalized flowsheet for asbestos milling process.....................................................................25 

11. Average unit values of asbestos produced in an imported into the 

United States from 1932 to 2003 ...............................................................................................41 

12. U.S. supply and demand relationship for asbestos in 2003 ..........................................................42 

13. Asbestos export patterns in 2003 for annual shipments greater than 10,000 metric tons ......43 
iii 

Tables 

1. Early developments in the asbestos industry...................................................................................2 

2. World asbestos production, all types ................................................................................................6 

3. Types of asbestos .................................................................................................................................8 

4. Quebec asbestos grading system ......................................................................................................9 

5. Grades for milled chrysotile from Zimbabwe .................................................................................10 

6. Grades for milled chrysotile from Swaziland..................................................................................10 

7. Classification of chrysotile in Russia ...............................................................................................10 

8. Grades for amosite from South Africa.............................................................................................10 

9. Grades for crocidolite from the Cape region of South Africa......................................................11 

10. Grades for crocidolite from the Transvaal region of South Africa .............................................11 

11. Properties of asbestos fibers ............................................................................................................14 

12. Major-oxide composition of commercial chrysotile samples .....................................................15 

13. Major-oxide composition of amphibole asbestos .........................................................................15 

14. World consumption of asbestos in 1974 and 1988.........................................................................17 

15. End uses for asbestos in the United States from 1965 to 2003 ....................................................18 

16. Asbestos substitutes ..........................................................................................................................19 

17. Examples of asbestos substitutes and alternative products .......................................................20 

18. Property resource information as of January 1982 .......................................................................22 

19. Asbestos production, trade, and consumption in 1960.................................................................27 

20. Asbestos production, trade, and consumption in 1975.................................................................29 

21. Asbestos production, trade, and consumption in 2000.................................................................32 

22. Asbestos production, trade, and consumption in 2003.................................................................36 

23. Changes in estimated apparent consumption................................................................................39

24. Mining methods and operating costs, January 1982 ....................................................................44 

25. Estimated mill-to-market fiber transportation costs in January 1982 ........................................46 

26. Energy used by the U.S. asbestos mining industry in 1985 ..........................................................46 

27. Energy consumed in the production of cleaned and graded chrysotile asbestos...................47 
vi

Conversion Factors

Multiply By To obtain

Area

square foot (ft2) 0.09290 square meter (m2)

Volume

gallon (gal) 3.785 liter (L) 

Mass

ton, short (2,000 lb) 0.9072 megagram (Mg) 

Pressure

bar 100 kilopascal (kPa) 

pound per square inch (lb/in2) 6.895 kilopascal (kPa) 

Energy

kilowatthour (kWh) 3,600,000 joule (J)

Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows:

°F=(1.8×°C)+32

Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit (°F) may be converted to degrees Celsius (°C) as follows:

°C=(°F-32)/1.8
Mineral Commodity Profiles—Asbestos

By Robert L. Virta

Hodgson, 1986, p. 110). Chrysotile has been the most commonly used form of asbestos, followed by crocidolite, amosite, 

and then anthophyllite asbestos. Relatively small amounts of 

tremolite asbestos and actinolite asbestos have been produced 

and used.

About 2.15 million tons (Mt) of asbestos with a value 

exceeding an estimated $500 million was produced in 17 

countries in 2003. The major producing countries, in decreasing order of production, were Russia, China, Canada, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Zimbabwe (fig. 1). These countries 

accounted for about 96 percent of world production. In 

2003, there were about 30 producing companies operating 

worldwide, not including China, which had an indeterminate 

number of small producers (Virta, 2005). Essentially all the 

asbestos mined today is chrysotile. A few thousand tons of 

tremolite asbestos may have been produced in a few locations 

(Moore, 2004).

The most common use for asbestos worldwide in 2003 

was in asbestos-cement (A/C) products, such as A/C corrugated and flat sheet, A/C fittings, and A/C pipe. These products accounted for more than 85 percent of world consumption. Other uses for asbestos were in asphalt roof coatings, 

brake pads and shoes, clutches, gaskets, electrical and thermal 

Overview

Asbestos is a generic name given to six fibrous minerals 

that have been used in commercial products. It is an industry 

term rather than a mineralogical term that is applied to specific 

fibrous mineral particles that possess high tensile strengths, 

large length-to-width ratios, flexibility, and resistance to 

chemical and thermal degradation. Asbestos also exhibits high 

electric resistance, and many forms can easily be woven into 

textiles (Bowles, 1935, p. 5-7; Rosato, 1959, p. 46-52; Meylan 

and others, 1978, p. 2-12; Virta, 2001).

The six types of asbestos that have been used commercially are actinolite asbestos, amosite (cummingtonite-grunerite asbestos), anthophyllite asbestos, chrysotile, crocidolite 

(riebeckite asbestos), and tremolite asbestos. Chrysotile is a 

serpentine group mineral. The other five varieties of asbestos 

are amphibole group minerals (Campbell and others, 1977, p. 

5-17, 33; Ross, Kuntze, and Clifton, 1984; Skinner, Ross, and 

Frondel, 1988, p. 30-32, 35). Magnesioriebeckite asbestos from Bolivia was used commercially in the past. Other 

varieties of amphibole asbestos, including richterite asbestos 

and potassian winchite asbestos, have been recognized but 

have not been used commercially (Wylie and Huggins, 1980; 

���������

���

������

�������

��������

���

������

�������

�����

�������

��������

����� �����

������

����������

�������

������

�������

��������

�������

Figure 1. Estimated world production of asbestos in 2003. Figures listed are in metric tons. Afghanistan, North Korea, Romania, and 

Slovakia also produced small amounts of asbestos estimated to be 10 metric tons for each.
2 Mineral Commodity Profiles—Asbestos

insulation, millboard and paper (mostly used in insulation 

applications), plastics, and textiles. The major markets for 

asbestos in the United States were asphalt roof coatings and 

coatings and compounds (Moore, 2004; Virta, 2005).

World asbestos consumption was estimated to be 2.15 

Mt in 2003. Use of asbestos was estimated to be greatest in 

China, India, Kazakhstan, Russia, Thailand, and Ukraine. 

These countries were believed to have accounted for between 

60 and 70 percent of world consumption based on trade data 

reported by the United Nations and world production between 

2000 and 2003 (United Nations, 2004; Virta, 2005).

The volume of trade in asbestos has decreased in past 30 

years as opposition to its use has increased worldwide. Brazil 

and Canada are the only two Western Hemisphere producers. These two countries export primarily to Asian and South 

American markets. Production from Africa, Eastern Europe, 

and China is used primarily in Eastern European and/or Asian 

countries (Perron, 2003; United Nations, 2005).

Historical Background

Asbestos has been used for more than 3,000 years. Some 

of the earliest uses were crematory shrouds, lamp wicks, and 

incombustible napkins and tablecloths (Anonymous, 1928, p. 

14-16; Bowles, 1935, p. 2-4; Sinclair, 1959, p. 277; Selikoff 

and Lee, 1978, p. 3-5; Gross and Braun, 1984, p. 9; Alleman 

and Mossman, 1997).

The modern asbestos industry began in the early 1800s 

when a textile industry was established in Italy to produce 

such items as fabrics, string, and book covers (Bowles, 1946, 

p. 14; Sinclair, 1959, p. 277; Alleman and Mossman, 1997). 

With increased industrialization, new uses that took advantage 

of the strength, heat resistance, and flexibility of asbestos 

fibers were developed. These included packings for steam 

glands on high-temperature machines, insulation for boilers 

and steam pipes, and fireproof roofing and wall materials. 

Textiles remained a small yet valuable market during this 

period of expanded use (Anonymous, 1953, p. 4-6; Sinclair, 

1959, p. 278-279; Selikoff and Lee, 1978, p. 17; Alleman and 

Mossman, 1997).

As the asbestos manufacturing industry grew worldwide in the late 1800s, concerns over supply arose because 

production in Italy, the world’s primary supplier of asbestos, 

and other countries totaled only a few thousand tons per year 

(Bowles, 1934, p. 7-24, Howling, 1937, p. 59; Selikoff and 

Lee, 1978, p. 14). The discovery and development of large 

asbestos deposits in Canada, Russia, and South Africa in the 

late 1800s resolved the supply issue (Sinclair, 1959, p. 3; 

Selikoff and Lee, 1978, p. 8-9).

In 1900, the development of the Hatschek machine for 

making A/C flat and corrugated panels resulted in a significant 

increase in demand for asbestos products (Rosato, 1959, p. 

63; Sinclair, 1959, p. 279). This technology enabled the mass 

production of inexpensive fireproof building materials. This 

was followed in 1929 by development of a process for the 

mass production of A/C pipe, enabling its widespread use in 

water supply and waste lines (Rosato, 1959, p. 78-79; Sinclair, 

1959, p. 279; Selikoff and Lee, 1978, p. 17). Simultaneously, 

the rise of the automobile industry resulted in an increased 

demand for asbestos for the manufacture of brakes, clutch 

components, and engine gaskets (Sinclair, 1959, p. 278). 

These developments resulted in a rapid increase in the use of 

asbestos worldwide. By 1910, world production exceeded 

80,000 metric tons (t), an increase of 300 to 400 percent from 

that of 1900. At that time, the United States was the leading 

user of asbestos in the world, accounting for an estimated 55 

percent of world consumption (Virta, 2003, p. 21).

Production and consumption declined during World War 

I and the Great Depression of the 1930s. Immediately after 

both events, there was rapid growth in construction and other 

market sectors, which continued into the 1940s. Sales and 

use of asbestos increased throughout the world to meet the 

demands of new and expanding markets (table 1; figs. 2, 3). 

In addition to automotive and A/C products, demand grew for 

asbestos millboard and paper for electrical panels; textiles for 

Table 1. Early developments in the asbestos industry

[Data from Anonymous, 1953, p. 4-6; Selikoff and Lee, 1978, p. 

17-18]

1857-1880 First packings and flat seals using asbestos

1866 First bonded and molded asbestos product for heat 

insulation

1868-1869 First use of asbestos in roofing felt and cement in the 

United States

1866-1876 Start of systematic textile processing in Italy

1878 Asbestos paper first made in the United States

1882 Concept of asbestos-containing magnesia insulation 

developed

1890 Textile processing begins in Canada

1893 First spinning of crocidolite in South Africa

1896 First woven brake bands made in the United Kingdom

1899 Wet machine process of making asbestos-cement 

developed

1900 Hatschek machine for manufacturing asbestos-cement 

pipe developed

1903 Asbestos-cement pipe industry begins in the United 

States

1904 Flat asbestos-cement board manufactured in the United 

States

1906 Asbestos first used as brake lining

1918 Molded clutch facing developed

1931 Technique for spraying asbestos developed in the United 

Kingdom

1940s Asbestos-cement pipe introduced in the United Kingdom

1944 Spraying of deck heads and bulkheads began in British 

ships
3

Figure 2. World consumption of asbestos, by region. Data from Virta, 2003b, p. 27.

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

YEAR

QUANTITY, IN THOUSAND METRIC TONS

Oceania

Asia

South America

North America

Africa

Europe

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

YEAR

QUANTITY, IN THOUSAND METRIC TONS

Supply shortage owing to 

Canadian miners strike

Korean

conflict

World War I

Energy crisis, recession

Recession, strike

Asbestos sales begin to decline 

after 1973 owing to health issue

First bans on 

asbestos use enacted

Asbestos health 

issue arises

Great Depression

World War II

Recession

Figure 3. U.S. apparent consumption of asbestos from 1900 to 2003. About 282,000 metric tons (t) of amosite, 90,000 t of anthophyllite, 

25.6 milli on metric tons of chrysotile, and 365,000 t of crocidolite were consumed in the United States between 1900 and 2003. Sources: 

Buckingham and Virta, 2002; Virta, 2003b, p. 21-22.

Historical Background
4 Mineral Commodity Profiles—Asbestos

insulating electrical wiring; spray-on asbestos products for 

protecting steel girders in buildings; reinforcing, heat-resistant fillers for plastics; fire-resistant roofing materials, such 

as asbestos felts, shingles, and asphalt roofing compounds; 

inexpensive, durable, and dimensionally stable flooring products, such as vinyl asbestos tile and flooring felts; heat- and 

acid-resistant gaskets and packings; thermal insulation on 

boiler systems for buildings and homes; fireproof suits for firefighters; reinforcement for plasters and caulking compounds; 

and filler and reinforcer in paints and asphalt road surfacing 

(Anonymous, 1953, p. 9-15; Rosato, 1959, p. 22-27; Cossette 

and Delvaux, 1979, p. 104-107; Roskill Information Services 

Ltd., 1990, p. 99-126).

The onset of World War II resulted in declining production in most regions of the globe except Canada, South 

Africa, and the United States. While asbestos production and 

use declined worldwide, U.S. war demands absorbed much 

of the increased production from Canada, South Africa, and 

the United States. U.S. consumption increased to about 77 

percent of world production in 1942 from 41 percent in 1934. 

However, postwar reconstruction and recovering economies 

again resulted in increased world demand for asbestos, and 

production of asbestos increased to supply these demands.

By 1958, it was reported that asbestos was used in about 

3,000 applications (Quebec Asbestos Information Service, 

1959). The myriad uses of asbestos resulted in a continued 

increase in demand for asbestos. Peak demand for asbestos 

was achieved in the mid 1970s, when about 25 countries were 

producing 5 Mt of asbestos, and about 85 countries were 

manufacturing asbestos products (Virta, 2003, p. 15, 40-41).

In the United States and many European countries, 

demand for asbestos began to decline in the 1970s (Alleman 

and Mossman, 1997). First, the asbestos industry had penetrated most large-volume markets by 1970 and probably had 

reached a mature stage, where sales to markets tend to level 

off. A more important factor, however, was the health issue. 

While health research from the 1920s to 1940s demonstrated 

an association between exposure to asbestos and asbestosis, it 

wasn’t until the late 1950s and early 1960s that an association 

between asbestos exposure and lung cancer was conclusively 

demonstrated (Selikoff and Lee, 1978, p. 26-28; Gross and 

Braun, 1984, p. 58-60; Skinner, Ross, and Frondel, 1988, p. 

104; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1992, p. 

14-17). Additional studies through the 1970s further confirmed the association (Skinner, Ross, and Frondel, 1988, p. 

105-107). With this finding, public opposition to the use of 

asbestos arose and has strengthened since then.

Liability also became a major issue for producers and 

manufacturers. In the United States, asbestos producers and 

manufacturers of asbestos products began facing an increasing number of large class action lawsuits filed on behalf of 

those suffering from asbestos-related diseases (Virta, 2002b, 

p. 11). This liability contributed to a shift by product manufacturers to asbestos substitutes, such as aramid fiber, cellulose 

Figure 4. World production of asbestos, by type, from 1900 to 2003. About 2.81 million metric tons (Mt) of amosite, 460,000 metric tons of

anthophyllite, 173 Mt of chrysotile, and 3.92 Mt of crocidolite were produced from 1900 to 2003. Sources: U.S. Geological Survey, 1901-

1921, 1924-1932, 1997-2005; U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1934-1996.

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

YEAR

QUANTITY, IN THOUSAND METRIC TONS

Amosite

Crocidolite

Anthophyllite

Chrysotile
5

fiber, polyvinyl alcohol fibers, or wollastonite or alternative 

products, such as aluminum siding, ductile iron and polyvinyl 

chloride pipe, fiberglass shingles, graphite packings, metallic 

disk brake pads, and mineral wool insulation (Hodgson, 1989, 

p. 1-2; Pye, 1989a, p. 342-370; 1989b, p. 67-69; Virta, 1994). 

Similar movements toward the use of nonasbestos products 

followed in most countries, particularly those in Western 

Europe. As a result, U.S consumption declined to 4,650 t in 

2003 from a peak of 800,000 t in 1973. World consumption 

also declined to an estimated 2.15 Mt in 2003 from a peak of 

about 4.36 Mt (which probably included sales of serpentinite 

tailings from processing asbestos ore) in the 1975 to 1977 

timeframe (Virta, 2003, p. 40-41; 2005, p. 8.6).

Between 1900 and 2003, product manufacturing required 

about 181 Mt of asbestos. Chrysotile accounted for an estimated 173 Mt of this total. About 2.81 Mt of amosite and 3.92 

Mt of crocidolite were mined to satisfy industry needs during 

this same time period. Most of the amosite and crocidolite 

was mined in South Africa. Small amounts of crocidolite also 

were mined in Australia and Bolivia. An estimated 460,000 

t of anthophyllite was used between 1900 and 2003. Most of 

the anthophyllite was mined in Finland and the United States. 

Small but unknown amounts of actinolite asbestos, anthophyllite asbestos, and tremolite asbestos have been produced in 

such countries as Bulgaria, India, Italy, Pakistan, Romania, 

South Africa, Turkey, and perhaps others since 1900 (Virta, 

2003, p. 26). Historical production of asbestos, by type, is 

shown in figure 4.

The leading source of this asbestos for most of the 20th 

century was Canada. Before 1950, Canadian mines satisfied 

more than half of the world’s demand for asbestos. By 1975, 

however, the combined production of Kazakhstan and Russia surpassed that of Canada. Around the time of peak world 

production and consumption in the middle 1970s, the major 

producing countries were, in decreasing order by tonnage, 

Kazakhstan and Russia (combined), Canada, South Africa, 

Zimbabwe, China, Italy, Brazil, the United States, and Australia. Canada, Kazakhstan, and Russia accounted for about 71 

percent of world production.

The 1980s and 1990s brought about many changes in 

the world supply pattern. Canadian production declined as 

asbestos fell into disfavor in Europe and the United States. 

Demand in China increased, boosting the country’s output of 

asbestos and prompting greater imports. In Brazil, an asbesFigure 5. World production of asbestos, by country, from 1900 to 2003. Total production from 1900 to 2003 was Brazil, 5.12 million metric 

tons (Mt); Canada, 61.2 Mt; China, 8.57 Mt; Greece, 0.92 Mt’ Italy, 3.87 Mt; Kazakhstan and Russia (combined), 70.4 Mt; South Africa, 9.93 

Mt; Swaziland, 1.80 Mt; the United States, 3.29 Mt; Zimbabwe, 9.14 Mt; and other countries combined, 6.42 Mt. Sources: Virta, 2003b, p. 

25-27; 2004b.

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

YEAR

QUANTITY, IN THOUSAND METRIC TONS

United States Canada

South Africa Zimbabwe

Swaziland Italy

Brazil Greece

Kazakhstan and Russia China

Other

Historical Background
6 Mineral Commodity Profiles—Asbestos

Table 2. World asbestos production, all types

[In metric tons. e, estimated; NA, not available; W, withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data; --, zero. Data from U.S. Bureau of 

Mines, 1934-1996; U.S. Geological Survey, 1901-1921; U.S. Geological Survey, 1924-1932; Virta, 1997-2005]

Year

United 

States Australia Brazil Canada China

Kazakhstan and 

Russia Greece Italy

South 

Africa

SwazilandZimbabwe OtherWorld

production1

1900 956 -- -- 26,436 NA NA -- NA 158 -- NA 3,937 31,487

1901 678 -- -- 36,484 NA NA -- NA 90 -- NA 4,517 41,769

1902 912 -- -- 36,665 NA NA -- NA 41 -- NA 4,506 42,124

1903 805 -- -- 37,809 NA 5,248 -- NA 277 -- NA 16 44,155

1904 1,343 -- -- 43,967 NA 7,479 -- NA 373 -- NA 186 53,348

1905 2,820 -- -- 61,927 NA 7,244 -- NA 455 -- NA 22 72,468

1906 1,538 -- -- 74,557 NA 7,997 -- NA 474 -- NA 1,223 85,789

1907 592 -- -- 82,033 NA 8,837 -- NA 548 -- NA 1,683 93,693

1908 849 -- -- 82,348 NA 10,827 -- NA 1,149 -- NA 1,647 96,820

1909 2,799 -- -- 79,197 NA 13,294 -- NA 1,519 -- NA 405 97,214

1910 3,350 -- -- 92,728 NA 11,070 -- NA 1,346 -- NA 611 109,105

1911 6,898 -- -- 115,588 NA 15,487 -- 167 1,149 -- NA 1,191 140,479

1912 3,994 -- -- 119,077 NA 16,455 -- 169 2,115 -- NA 6,574 148,383

1913 905 -- -- 124,239 NA 17,494 -- 175 873 -- 263 93 144,042

1914 1,026 -- -- 87,580 NA 15,691 -- 171 1,079 -- 442 11 106,000

1915 1,424 -- -- 100,826 NA 9,779 -- 163 1,940 -- 1,823 1,045 117,000

1916 1,217 37 -- 121,053 NA 8,192 -- 82 4,224 -- 5,586 4,875 145,229

1917 1,385 280 -- 122,925 378 -- -- 85 5,643 -- 8,675 1,909 141,000

1918 825 2,900 -- 128,331 243 NA -- 60 3,333 -- 7,778 3,430 144,000

1919 955 106 -- 124,070 69 NA -- 98 3,567 -- 8,889 2,647 140,295

1920 1,356 839 -- 162,038 5 1,478 -- 165 6,452 -- 17,076 4,430 193,000

1921 754 1,201 -- 61,083 169 2,604 -- 420 4,647 -- 17,716 3,707 91,100

1922 61 754 -- 109,128 197 3,215 -- 540 3,982 -- 12,926 5,951 136,000

1923 206 331 -- 164,014 128 4,780 -- 1,538 7,614 -- 18,474 4,246 201,000

1924 272 79 -- 150,768 127 8,456 -- 2,160 6,569 -- 23,715 5,933 198,000

1925 1,141 51 -- 248,136 213 12,330 -- 2,105 9,224 -- 31,161 7,690 312,000

1926 1,232 112 -- 253,469 NA 18,334 -- 2,900 12,789 -- 30,249 10,027 329,000

1927 2,704 11 -- 249,273 241 21,156 -- 3,840 20,106 -- 30,097 14,583 342,000

1928 2,031 12 -- 247,690 NA 26,492 NA 4,950 21,821 -- 36,251 14,765 354,000

1929 2,862 260 -- 277,647 277 29,520 NA 2,847 29,971 -- 38,677 17,913 399,714

1930 3,848 144 -- 219,641 315 54,083 2 851 17,491 -- 34,260 7,572 338,063

1931 2,928 130 -- 149,047 264 64,674 10 632 14,221 -- 21,810 5,849 259,435

1932 3,229 132 112 111,562 250 59,800 9 1,284 10,950 5 14,303 3,895 205,399

1933 4,305 283 99 143,667 239 71,700 14 3,267 14,412 NA 27,381 8,991 274,075

1934 4,615 157 NA 141,502 290 92,200 30 2,252 15,960 NA 29,224 13,140 299,213

1935 8,092 179 NA 190,931 70 95,500 2 4,320 20,600 NA 38,644 13,871 372,030

1936 10,037 243 NA 273,322 69 125,117 1 6,113 22,894 NA 51,116 18,291 506,960

1937 10,958 168 NA 371,967 NA 125,000 2 6,393 25,975 NA 51,722 20,925 612,942

1938 9,471 176 120 262,894 700 86,000 85 6,860 21,025 NA 53,352 14,839 455,346

1939 14,024 325 45 330,642 18,015 e95,000 2 6,765 20,003 7,233 52,900 18,388 563,017

1940 18,198 498 500 313,504 20,015 e102,000 NA 8,271 24,850 18,873 50,809 17,098 573,728

1941 22,127 256 13 433,492 20,515 e95,000 NA 10,766 25,655 19,166 40,037 9,786 676,557

1942 14,044 334 NA 398,669 20,615 e95,000 NA 11,695 31,351 23,219 50,623 11,298 656,514

1943 5,456 699 NA 423,831 20,000 e

100,000 NA 8,459 32,347 17,179 52,749 72,979 733,000
7

Table 2. World asbestos production, all types—Continued

[In metric tons. e, estimated; NA, not available; W, withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data; --, zero. Data from U.S. Bureau of 

Mines, 1934-1996; U.S. Geological Survey, 1901-1921; U.S. Geological Survey, 1924-1932; Virta, 1997-2005]

Year

United 

States Australia Brazil Canada China

Kazakhstan and 

Russia Greece Italy

South 

Africa

SwazilandZimbabwe OtherWorld

production1

1944 6,048 3,022 NA 380,349 NA e110,000 NA 7,238 31,372 29,628 52,882 94,483 712,000

1945 11,091 4,071 2,723 423,559 NA e120,000 NA 5,222 25,597 21,243 51,068 91,497 752,000

1946 12,769 629 1,214 506,371 NA e140,000 4 8,814 25,597 29,155 50,686 115,390 890,000

1947 21,804 1399 2,631 600,391 NA e160,000 40 10,719 27,344 25,360 49,073 162,638 1,060,000

1948 33,649 1,348 1,499 650,239 NA e180,000 9 13,044 41,490 29,421 62,502 193,147 1,205,000

1949 39,360 1,671 1,415 521,543 NA 191,000 9 15,877 64,335 30,814 72,246 38,401 975,000

1950 38,496 1,811 844 794,100 NA 217,725 30 21,433 79,301 29,635 64,888 46,289 1,292,740

1951 46,852 2865 1,321 882,871 NA 217,725 34 22,612 97,403 31,719 70,456 53,291 1,424,282

1952 48,865 4,546 1,305 843,083 NA 217,725 24 23,938 121,417 31,542 76,961 50,351 1,415,210

1953 49,402 5,567 1,231 826,651 NA 272,156 1 20,397 86,017 27,309 79,597 56,985 1,419,746

1954 43,201 4,789 2,555 838,345 13,608 340,195 2 23,784 99,020 27,344 72,542 54,405 1,515,000

1955 40,431 5,437 2,834 965,066 20,865 408,234 3 32,101 108,421 29,586 95,491 65,980 1,769,012

1956 37,478 8,808 3,392 920,112 10,886 453,593 5 35,785 123,849 27,102 107,932 85,165 1,805,300

1957 39,601 13,308 2,408 948,994 29,937 453,593 8 36,615 142,858 27,875 119,863 85,195 1,886,947

1958 39,897 14,125 3,462 839,447 58,967 498,952 -- 38,555 159,342 22,916 115,319 87,409 1,864,267

1959 41,240 16,216 3,357 952,934 81,647 544,311 -- 47,662 165,475 22,504 108,591 82,520 2,050,240

1960 41,026 14,164 3,538 1,014,647 81,647 598,743 -- 54,914 159,540 29,054 121,529 108,895 2,213,533

1961 47,912 15,192 3,084 1,064,759 90,719 798,324 -- 56,975 176,687 27,934 146,613 99,899 2,512,905

1962 48,253 16,707 4,445 1,102,969 90,719 644,102 -- 55,211 200,762 29,783 128,999 103,335 2,408,578

1963 60,234 12,133 1,306 1,157,143 99,790 684,925 67 57,167 186,648 30,255 129,053 98,860 2,505,449

1964 91,709 12,288 1,297 1,288,069 117,934 734,821 63 68,556 195,582 36,162 139,210 94,330 2,767,733

1965 107,297 10,493 1,092 1,259,366 127,006 745,000 -- 71,928 218,407 37,089 159,802 87,097 2,814,085

1966 114,240 12,217 1,651 1,350,850 136,078 755,000 -- 82,325 250,925 32,788 160,003 87,411 2,971,271

1967 111,755 666 2,256 1,317,328 149,686 769,000 -- 101,062 243,563 36,427 97,302 81,201 2,909,580

1968 109,488 812 4,360 1,369,578 154,222 816,467 -- 103,437 236,350 38,960 86,184 88,550 3,007,596

1969 114,247 838 12,701 1,430,520 158,758 961,617 -- 112,526 258,174 39,079 79,832 97,619 3,265,073

1970 113,683 739 16,329 1,507,420 172,365 1,065,943 -- 118,536 287,416 33,057 79,832 99,219 3,493,800

1971 118,734 756 19,958 1,482,867 158,758 1,152,126 -- 119,568 319,296 35,484 79,834 98,074 3,584,698

1972 119,443 16,838 32,883 1,530,469 199,581 1,220,165 -- 131,272 320,628 33,400 79,834 109,553 3,777,227

1973 136,111 43,529 44,868 1,690,065 208,653 1,279,132 -- 150,256 332,650 36,900 163,293 143,572 4,185,499

1974 98,966 30,863 61,871 1,643,790 149,686 1,360,779 -- 148,099 333,272 37,917 163,293 159,344 4,157,016

1975 89,498 47,922 73,978 1,055,668 149,686 1,896,018 -- 146,995 354,710 41,219 163,293 167,692 4,138,756

1976 104,873 60,642 92,703 1,536,091 150,000 1,850,000 NA 164,788 369,840 41,847 281,000 175,929 4,767,071

1977 92,256 50,601 92,773 1,517,360 200,000 1,900,000 NA 149,327 380,164 38,046 273,194 150,331 4,793,451

1978 93,097 62,744 122,815 1,421,808 250,000 1,945,000 NA 135,402 257,325 36,957 248,861 181,952 4,693,217

1979 93,354 79,721 138,457 1,492,719 140,000 2,020,000 NA 143,931 249,187 34,294 259,891 186,189 4,758,022

1980 80,079 92,418 169,173 1,323,000 131,700 2,070,000 NA 157,794 276,734 32,833 250,949 177,038 4,669,300

1981 75,618 45,494 138,417 1,121,845 106,000 2,105,000 457 137,086 235,943 35,264 247,600 146,236 4,349,466

1982 63,515 18,587 145,998 834,249 110,000 2,700,000 17,016 116,410 211,860 30,145 197,682 132,620 4,559,495

1983 69,906 3,909 158,885 857,504 160,000 2,500,000 31,811 139,054 221,111 26,287 153,221 111,088 4,428,867

1984 57,422 -- 134,788 836,654 135,000 2,500,000 45,376 147,272 167,389 25,832 165,385 96,724 4,311,842

1985 57,457 -- 165,446 750,190 150,000 2,500,000 46,811 136,006 164,247 25,130 173,580 80,121 4,248,988

1986 51,437 -- 204,460 662,381 150,712 2,400,000 51,355 115,208 138,862 24,475 163,984 66,490 4,029,364

1987 50,600 -- 212,807 664,546 144,673 2,554,600 60,134 118,352 135,074 25,925 193,295 77,116 4,237,122

Historical Background
8 Mineral Commodity Profiles—Asbestos

Table 2. World asbestos production, all types—Continued

[In metric tons. e, estimated; NA, not available; W, withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data; --, zero. Data from U.S. Bureau of 

Mines, 1934-1996; U.S. Geological Survey, 1901-1921; U.S. Geological Survey, 1924-1932; Virta, 1997-2005]

Year

United 

States Australia Brazil Canada China

Kazakhstan and 

Russia Greece Italy

South 

Africa

SwazilandZimbabwe OtherWorld

production1

1988 18,233 -- 227,653 710,357 150,000 2,600,000 71,114 94,549 145,678 22,804 186,581 84,020 4,310,989

1989 17,427 -- 206,195 732,192 181,000 2,600,000 73,300 44,348 156,594 27,291 187,006 65,011 4,290,364

1990 W -- 205,000 725,000 221,000 2,400,000 66,000 3,860 146,000 35,900 161,000 50,495 4,014,255

1991 20,061 -- 237,000 639,000 200,000 2,000,000 4,730 15,000 148,525 13,900 142,000 67,735 3,487,951

1992 15,573 -- 170,000 590,641 240,000 1,900,000 30,000 -- 133,268 32,301 150,158 9,549 3,271,490

1993 13,704 -- 185,000 522,967 240,000 1,130,000 56,945 -- 103,994 33,860 156,881 331,844 2,775,195

1994 10,100 -- 192,050 531,000 303,000 830,000 55,502 -- 92,130 26,720 151,905 57,593 2,250,000

1995 9,000 -- 170,000 515,587 263,000 808,400 76,003 -- 88,642 28,570 169,256 51,542 2,180,000

1996 9,550 -- 170,000 506,000 293,000 743,700 80,213 -- 57,120 26,014 165,494 48,909 2,100,000

1997 6,890 -- 170,000 455,000 288,000 892,000 63,294 -- 49,986 25,888 144,959 37,277 2,150,000

1998 5,760 -- 198,332 309,000 314,000 755,400 50,000 -- 27,195 27,693 123,295 149,325 1,820,000

1999 7,190 -- 188,386 337,366 229,000 814,300 -- -- 18,836 22,912 115,000 107,010 1,940,000

2000 5,260 -- 209,332 307,000 315,000 983,200 -- -- 18,782 12,690 152,000 108,426 2,110,000

2001 5,260 -- 132,695 277,000 310,000 1,021,300 -- -- 13,393 -- 136,327 144,025 2,040,000

2002 2,720 -- 194,732 241,000 270,000 1,066,100 -- -- -- -- 168,000 107,448 2,050,000

2003 -- -- 195,000 241,000 260,000 1,231,000 -- -- -- -- 130,000 93,000 2,150,000

Total 3,290,000 751,000 5,146,794 61,203,777 8,569,684 69,174,901 881,000 3,860,000 9,932,589 1,796,224 9,135,235 6,549,533 174,000,000

1

Some data are rounded to no more than three significant digits, may not add to totals shown.

tos manufacturing industry developed that prompted expansion of asbestos production there. Between 1980 and 2003, 

many lesser but still significant producing countries, including 

Australia, Greece, Italy, Swaziland, and the United States, had 

ceased production. As a result of these changes, Russia was 

the leading producer in 2003, followed by Kazakhstan, China, 

Canada, Brazil, and Zimbabwe. Kazakhstan and Russia 

accounted for 48 percent of world production (Virta, 2004a; 

fig. 5; table 2).

Chemical Identity

Serpentine Asbestos

Chrysotile is the only commercial asbestos mineral that 

belongs to the serpentine group, which consists of hydrated 

magnesium silicates (table 3). Moderate amounts of aluminum may substitute for silicon and moderate amounts of iron 

may substitute magnesium in the crystal structure. Small 

amounts of calcium oxide (CaO), chromium oxide (Cr2O3), 

cobalt oxide (CoO), manganous oxide (MnO), nickel oxide 

(NiO), potassium oxide, and sodium oxide also have been 

detected in chrysotile samples (Sinclair, 1959, p. 9-11; Skinner, Ross, and Frondel, 1988, p. 32).

Amphibole Asbestos

The other five commercial asbestos minerals belong 

to the amphibole mineral group, which are hydrated silicate 

minerals. Because of the nature of the crystalline structure 

of amphiboles, there may be considerable substitution of 

elements in the crystal lattice. While there are more than 70 

chemically distinct amphibole end-members, only 5 have been 

used commercially as asbestos. These are actinolite asbestos, 

amosite (cummingtonite-grunerite asbestos), anthophyllite 

Table 3. Types of asbestos

[Information from Leake and others, 1997, p. 222; Skinner, Ross, 

and Frondel, 1988, p. 29, 36]

Type End-member formula

Chrysotile, hydrated magnesium silicate Mg3

Si2O5(OH)4.

Crocidolite, complex sodium iron silicate, 

(riebeckite) commonly called blue 

asbestos Na2(Fe+2

3

Fe+3

2

)Si8O22(OH)2.

Amosite (grunerite asbestos), iron silicate 

with varying amounts of magnesium Fe2+

7

Si8O22(OH)2.

Anthophyllite asbestos, magnesium silicate 

with varying amounts of iron Mg7Si8O22(OH)2.

Tremolite asbestos, calcium magnesium 

silicate Ca2Mg5Si8O22(OH)2.

Actinolite asbestos, calcium magnesium 

silicate with varying amounts of iron Ca2(Mg,Fe+2)

5

Si8O22(OH)2.
9

asbestos, crocidolite (riebeckite asbestos), and tremolite asbestos. Actinolite and tremolite are rich in calcium, iron, and/or 

magnesium; anthophyllite is rich in magnesium; amosite is 

rich in iron; and crocidolite is rich in iron and sodium (table 

3). A considerable amount of substitution of other elements 

for calcium, ferric iron, ferrous iron, magnesium, silicon, and 

sodium can take place in these minerals (Sinclair, 1959, p. 19-

31; Skinner, Ross, and Frondel, 1988, p. 37; Leake and others, 

1997, p. 221).

Commercial Forms, Grades, Shapes, 

and Specifications

Amosite, Chrysotile, and Crocidolite.

Chrysotile has been the variety of asbestos used most 

commonly by industry. Chrysotile occurs in larger quantities, and its commercial deposits are more widely distributed 

than those of amosite, anthophyllite asbestos, crocidolite, and 

tremolite asbestos. Chrysotile usually has soft fibers that are 

less harsh than the amphibole varieties of asbestos and also 

has other properties that make it well suited for most asbestos 

applications. Chrysotile accounted for about 96 percent of 

world asbestos production and consumption between 1900 and 

2003. Crocidolite accounted for 2.2 percent, amosite for 1.6 

percent, and anthophyllite and tremolite asbestos varieties for 

less than 1 percent of production and consumption (fig. 4).

Grades, Shapes, and Specifications

Asbestos minerals are graded primarily by length. The 

Quebec Asbestos Mining Association (QAMA) developed 

a method for grading chrysotile that has been widely used 

since its development (Asbestos Textile Institute and Quebec 

Asbestos Mining Association, 1975, p. A1/1-C5/11). This test 

is performed on the Quebec standard (QS) testing machine, 

which consists of a stack of three sieve boxes with 12.7 millimeter (mm) (1⁄2 inch), 4-mesh-per-inch, and 10-mesh-perinch screens, stacked top to bottom, and a bottom box serving as a pan. Exactly 454 grams (16 avoirdupois ounces) of 

asbestos fiber is placed in the top sieve, and the stack of sieves 

is shaken using a rotary shaker. After shaking, the weight 

on each sieve and in the bottom collection pan is measured 

and used to designate the chrysotile grade. Variations of the 

QAMA method have been used depending on the source of the 

chrysotile being mined (tables 4-7).

Other properties that may be tested are air permeability, color, compressibility and recovery, drainage rate, grit 

content, loose density, kerosene retention, magnetic properties, 

moisture content, resin sorption, soluble chlorides, surface 

area, tensile strength, and wet volume (Sinclair, 1959, p. 290-

291; Asbestos Textile Institute and Quebec Asbestos Mining 

Table 4. Quebec asbestos grading system1

[In avoirdupois ounces. --, zero. Information from Bowles, 1955, 

p. 84; Sinclair, 1959, p. 256; American Textile Institute and Quebec 

Asbestos Mining Association, 1975]

Guaranteed minimum shipping test

1⁄2 inch 4 mesh 10 mesh pan

Group No. 1: No. 1 crude (cross fiber veins having 3⁄4-inch staple and 

longer).

Group No. 2: No. 2 crude (cross fiber veins having 3⁄8-inch staple up 

to 3⁄4-inches; run-of-mine crude consists of unsorted crudes; sundry 

crudes consist of crudes other than above specified.

Group No. 3 (commonly referred to as textile or shipping fibers):

3F 10.5 3.9 1.3 0.3

3K 7 7 1.5 0.5

3R 4 7 4 1

3T 2 8 4 2

3Z 1 9 4 2

Group No. 4 (commonly referred to as asbestos cement fiber):

4A -- 8 6 2

4D -- 7 6 3

4H -- 5 8 3

4K -- 4 9 3

4M -- 4 8 4

4R -- 3 9 4

4T -- 2 10 4

4Z -- 1.5 9.5 5

Group No. 5 (often referred to as paper stock grades):

5D -- 0.5 10.5 5

5K -- -- 12 4

5M -- -- 11 5

5R -- -- 10 6

5Z -- -- 8.6 7.4

Group No. 6 (paper and shingle fibers):

6D -- -- 7 9

6F -- -- 6 10

Group No. 7 (shorts and floats):

7D -- -- 5 11

7F -- -- 4 12

7H -- -- 3 13

7K -- -- 2 14

7M -- -- 1 15

7R -- -- 0 16

7T -- -- 0 16

7RF and 7TF floats -- -- 0 16

7W -- -- 0 16

Commercial Forms, Grades, Shapes, and Specifications
10 Mineral Commodity Profiles—Asbestos

Associaton, 1975, p. D1/1-G10/1; Cossette and Delvaux, 

1979, p. 96-104). These test methods can be used to a limited 

extent for amosite. Crocidolite is harsher and has longer fibers 

than chrysotile so the QAMA tests are not particularly useful. 

Other tests were developed to grade amosite and crocidolite, although visual methods and trial production runs were 

probably most useful for crocidolite (Cape Asbestos Fibres 

Ltd., undated, p. 1 • 1/2; Sinclair, 1959, p. 259-261; Cossette 

and Delvaux, 1979, p. 109). Classification schemes used for 

amosite and crocidolite are listed in tables 8-10.

Table 4. Quebec asbestos grading system—Continued1

[In avoirdupois ounces. --, zero. Information from Bowles, 1955, 

p. 84; Sinclair, 1959, p. 256; American Textile Institute and Quebec 

Asbestos Mining Association, 1975]

Guaranteed minimum shipping test

1⁄2 inch 4 mesh 10 mesh pan

Group Nos. 8 and ( sands and gravels)

8S (minimum 50 pounds 

per cubic foot)

-- -- -- 16

8T (minimum 75 pounds 

per cubic foot)

-- -- -- 16

9T (more than 75 pounds 

per cubic foot)

-- -- -- 16

1

As of 2005, the grading standards have not been converted to the 

metric system.

Table 5. Grades for milled chrysotile from Zimbabwe

[do, ditto; QAMA, Quebec Asbestos Mining Association. 

Information from Sinclair, 1959, p. 258]

Grade Properties

C and G/1 High-grade textile (equal to QAMA group 2).

C and G/2 High-grade textile (equal to QAMA group 3).

C and G/3 Shingle stock.

C and G/4 do.

VRA/2 Similar to C and G/2.

VRA/3 Similar to C and G/3.

VRA/4 Similar to C and G/4.

Table 6. Grades for milled chrysotile from Swaziland

[Information from Sinclair, 1959, p. 258]

Grade Properties

HVL/1 Long spinning fiber.

HVL/2 Short spinning fiber.

HVL/3 Similar to C and G/3.

HVL/3XX Similar to C and G/4.

Table 7. Classification of chrysotile in Russia

[do, ditto; QAMA, Quebec Asbestos Mining Association. 

Information from Bowles, 1959, p. 26]

Grade1 Type Properties

AA Crude More than 18 millimeters.

O-1 Textile Equal to QAMA 3F or 3K.

O-2 do Equal to QAMA 3R.

I-2 do Equal to QAMA 3Z.

G-3 do do.

O-3 Shingle Equal to QAMA 4H.

Table 7. Classification of chrysotile in Russia—Continued

[do, ditto; QAMA, Quebec Asbestos Mining Association. 

Information from Bowles, 1959, p. 26]

Grade1 Type Properties

O-4 Shingle Equal to QAMA 4Z.

I-4 do Equal to QAMA 4R.

G-4 do Equal to QAMA 4Z.

WS do Not specified.

R-5 Paper Equal to QAMA 6D.

I-5 do Equal to QAMA 6D plus.

S-4 do Equal to QAMA 5DO.

R-6 Shorts Not specified.

I-6 do do.

6-A do do.

1

Grades S-4 and WS not completely opened fiber; I grades soft 

but not completely open; G grades contain more unopened crudes; 

O and R grades contain much hard, crude fiber.

Table 8. Grades for amosite from South Africa

[do, ditto. Information from Bowles, 1959, p. 25]

Grade1 Length range Designation

D3 2 to 6 inches Long.

D11 0.5 to 2 inches Medium.

MD do. do.

DX do. do.

M do. do.

S2 0.18 to 1 inch Shorts.

R 0.12 to 0.5 inches Residue.

K3 0.5 to 2 inches Medium.

SK 0.18 to 1 inch Shorts.

RK 0.12 to 0.5 inches Residue.

W3 0.5 to 2 inches Medium.

SW 0.18 to 1 inch Shorts.

RW 0.12 to 0.5 Residue.

WEG 0.12 to 3 inches Medium.

1

Properties such as fiber size distribution, color, and source also factor in grade designation.
11

Grade Specifications for Products

Much of the asbestos fiber selection is based on the 

properties of the final product rather than the fiber itself, so 

there is flexibility in the fiber selection. In general, the characteristics of fiber products that have been demonstrated to work 

effectively in trial manufacturing runs are used as the basis for 

future fiber sales. The following discussion gives examples of 

criteria for various uses as cited in Virta and Mann (1994, p. 

120-121), test procedures published by ASTM International 

(formerly the American Society for Testing and Materials), 

and other applications as cited in the discussion.

Asbestos-Cement Products

Pressure pipe must conform to industry specifications for 

corrosion (chemical dissolution of the pipe interior), deflection (leakage with slightly misaligned pipes), flexural strength, 

modulus of rupture, moisture absorption, and pipe flex. Nonpressure pipe is subject to all of the specifications required for 

pressure pipe except for those applying to hydraulic testing. 

A/C pipe is produced using group 4, 5, and 6 fiber. In the 

past, chrysotile was blended with crocidolite to ensure a good 

modulus of rupture. Crocidolite, however, is no longer used to 

manufacture A/C pipe owing to health issues.

Specifications for A/C sheet may include color, efflorescence (the formation of crystalline deposits on walls through 

water evaporation), finish, flexural and impact strength, and 

water absorption. Freeze-thaw characteristics also may be 

specified for applications exposed to temperature extremes. 

A/C sheet usually is manufactured using group 6 fiber (table 

4). Formulations for corrugated sheet generally also include 

some group 5 fiber to improve adhesion of the wet sheet 

during the forming process. Asbestos improves the strength, 

stiffness, and toughness of sheet and shingle. Fibers for A/C 

products have a low loose density, high filtration rates, and 

high bulk fiber resilience (Rosato, 1959, p. 62-63; Cossette 

and Delvaux, 1979, p. 107; U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1988, p. 14.1, 15.1, 16.1, 17.1; Ciullo, 1996, p. 19).

Drainage is an important consideration with A/C products 

manufactured using the wet-machine process because it affects 

production rates. Fast-filtering, harsh fibers are preferred for 

these products. Amosite was such a fiber, but it is no longer 

used in the manufacture of A/C products owing to health 

issues.

Group 6 or a blend of group 6 and 7 fiber can be used to 

manufacture shingles using a dry process that meet strength or 

drainage standards.

Other A/C building products may use fiber from groups 

4, 5, 6, and 7.

The asbestos content of pipe was in the range of 15 to 

25 percent; of sheet, 20 to 50 percent; and of shingle, 10 to 

30 percent (Zielhuis, 1977, p. 27; Meylan and others, 1978, p. 

111, 137; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1985, p. A1-

A2; 1988, p. 14.1, 15.1, 16.1, 17.1). A few asbestos cement 

products apparently could contain as much as 70 percent 

asbestos (National Institutes of Health, 1991, p. 19).

Asbestos Paper and Millboard

Asbestos fiber is mixed with a binder to manufacture 

millboard and paper products, including electrical insulation, 

pipe coverings, and roofing felt. Blends of group 3, 4, 5, and 

6 fiber are used for board and paper products, depending upon 

the desired strength and porosity of the paper. The asbestos 

content improves corrosion properties, fire and heat resistance, 

and degradation of the product from exposure to moisture 

(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1988, p. 3.1-3.2, 

4.1-4.2, 6.1, 7.1-7.2). Paper and millboard products usually 

are tested for adhesive bond if multilayer paper and millboard 

products are used, efflorescence, flexural strength, thermal 

resistance, and vapor permeability. For electrical insulation, 

products may be tested for arc resistance, dielectric strength, 

expansion, flexural strength, hardness, resistance to impact, 

and water absorption.

Felt sold as pipeline wrap comprises 85 percent asbestos, 

cellulose fiber, and binder. Millboard is a heavy cardboardlike material that can contain 60 to 95 percent asbestos. 

Typical formulations use 70 to 80 percent asbestos. Commercial paper for insulation use, including corrugated paper, can 

contain up to 98 percent asbestos. Rollboard, which consists 

Table 9. Grades for crocidolite from the Cape region of 

South Africa

[Information from Sinclair, 1959, p. 260]

Grade Length range

X -0.25 inches, milled.

S 0.25 to 0.5 inches, milled.

A 0.5 to 0.75 inches.

B 0.75 to 1.25 inches, hand cobbed.

C 1.25 to 1.75 inches, hand cobbed.

D 1.75 to 2.25 inches, hand cobbed.

E +2.25 inches, hand cobbed.

Table 10. Grades for crocidolite from the Transvaal region of 

South Africa

[Information from Sinclair, 1959, p. 261]

Grade Length range

Crude +1.5 inches, hand cobbed.

TX +1.5 inches, milled.

T1 0.84 to 1.5 inches, milled.

T2 0.5 to 0.84 inches, milled.

T3 0.25 to 0.5 inches, milled.

T4 -0.25 inches, milled.

Commercial Forms, Grades, Shapes, and Specifications
12 Mineral Commodity Profiles—Asbestos

of two layers of asbestos paper glued together with sodium 

silicate, generally comprises 70 to 80 percent asbestos (U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1988, p. 3.1-3.2, 4.1-4.2, 

6.1). Some insulation products comprised entirely of asbestos, while magnesia-base pipe coverings contained about 

15 percent asbestos (Meylan and others, 1978, p. 166; U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1985, p. A1-A2). Average 

asbestos contents of roofing felts were about 85 percent but 

could approach 95 percent (Meylan and others, 1978, p. 166; 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1988, p. 7.1).

Asphalt Products

Group 7 asbestos fiber is combined with asphalt and/or 

various solvents to make such products as asphalt caulking 

components, spray or brush-on roof coatings, and asphalt road 

pavements. The primary functions of asbestos are to control 

the flow of asphalt coatings and compounds, improve resistance to cracking and weathering, increase resistance to sag on 

angled surfaces, and reduce costs (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1988, p. 29.1; Ciullo, 1996, p. 19-20).

In asbestos products, asbestos content ranged from 1 to 5 

percent for adhesives and cement, 5 to 12 percent for bituminous coatings, and 10 to 25 percent for roof putties (Meylan 

and others, 1978, p. 239-241; U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1985, p. A1-A2; 1988, p. 29.1, 30.1).

Caulking Compounds and Nonbituminous 

Sealants and Coatings

Some caulks are made with group 3 fiber while others 

are made using shorter, group 7, 8, and 9 fiber and floats. 

The fiber is combined with various types of resins and other 

materials to produce soft plastic caulking compound. Asbestos increases the viscosity of the caulks, reduces the sag, and 

reinforces the matrix (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

1988, p. 30.1-30.3). In paints, asbestos controls viscosity and 

improves film strength. In spackles, it reinforces the matrix 

and controls viscosity. Asbestos contents ranged from 5 to 

25 percent for caulking, glazing, and patching compounds; 3 

to 5 percent for spackles; 2 to 10 percent for plasters; 2 to 15 

percent for paints; 1 to 5 percent for liquid sealants; and 1 to 

5 percent for adhesives and cement (Meylan and others, 1978, 

p. 240-241; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1985, p. 

A1-A2; 1988, p. 30.1).

Friction Materials

Friction products are made with fiber ranging from group 

3 spinning grades to the shorter fiber of group 7, with shorter 

fiber grades 5, 6, and 7 dominating.

In the past, clutch plates were made using asbestos openweave cloth impregnated with resin and bonded to a steel disk. 

Most are now manufactured by molding onto a packing plate a 

dry resin-fiber blend under high temperature and high pressure conditions. For the openweave cloth, group 3 fiber was 

required. The molding process uses group 5, 6, and 7 fiber.

Most automobile brake linings bonded to a steel shoe 

are made from group 7 fiber in a semiwet extrusion process. 

Heavy brake blocks for railcars and large vehicles are made 

using group 5 or 6 fiber. Group 6 and 7 fiber is used in disk 

brake-pad formulations. Asbestos serves to improve the flexibility of the lining in the uncured state and the tensile strength 

in both the uncured and cured states, to provide heat resistance, to reduce lining wear, and to reduce costs (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1988, p. 18.1, 19.1, 20.1, 21.1). 

The brake components that contain asbestos must exhibit 

uniform friction characteristics at all temperatures and pressures, bond tightly to the matrix, and the fibers must disperse 

well in the formulation (Hodgson, 1985, p. 191-192; U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1988, p. 18.1; Pye, 1989b, 

p. 139-145; Jacko and Rhee, 1992; Kobayashi, 2002).

Brakes contain 30 to 70 percent asbestos depending 

on the application (Rosato, 1959, p. 121; Zielhuis, 1977, p. 

27; Meylan and others, 1978, p. 79-80; Pye, 1989b, p. 140; 

National Institutes of Health, 1991, p. 20). Drum brake linings 

contained as much as 60 percent asbestos, and disc brake pads, 

25 to 30 percent (Hodgson, 1985, p. 192). Brake formulations 

also are different for cars and trucks. The average brake lining 

composition in cars was 55 percent asbestos in 1968; that of 

trucks was 33 percent asbestos (Meylan and others, 1978, p. 

79).

Gaskets

Latex asbestos paper made from group 7 fiber can be 

used for gaskets, but most sheet packing material is formed 

using a calendaring process. This calendaring process uses 

the longer fiber from groups 3, 4, or 5 that has been cleaned 

and opened. The fiber is blended with natural or synthetic 

rubber, plasticizers, and other ingredients to form dough that 

is later calendared into sheets of various thicknesses. Group 6 

and 7 fiber may also be used to manufacture gaskets. Product 

specifications cover bending strength, compression strength, 

and resistance to breakdown by chemicals and heat.

Asbestos content was generally more than 75 percent and 

often was as high as 100 percent in some packing products 

(Meylan and others, 1978, p. 218; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1988, p. 27.2, 28.4).

Plastics

Asbestos, or a combination of asbestos and fiberglass is 

used to reinforce some structural plastics. In the past, a mat, 

paper, or cloth of asbestos was used to form laminates with 

resins, such as furanes, melamines, phenolics, polyesters, and 

thermosetting silicones. Group 3, 4, 5, and 6 fiber is used as 

a filler and extender in plastics. Short group 7 fiber and floats 

also were used as fibrous filler for the production of molded 

phenolic resin and polyester parts. In these applications, 
13

freedom from abrasive particles was important to minimize 

die wear. For applications where asbestos is used to improve 

the tensile strength of plastics, the fibers are opened. Color is 

important for some applications, and a white fiber is desirable. 

Asbestos is used to control resin viscosity, provide heat resistance and dimensional stability, improve electrical resistance, 

heat deflection, tensile strength, and reduce costs (Cossette 

and Delvaux, 1979, p. 108; Ciullo, 1996, p. 20;).

Phenolic compounds contained 50 to 60 percent asbestos. 

Plastics comprising other resins may require as little as 5 percent and as much as 70 percent asbestos (Zielhuis, 1977, p. 27; 

Meylan and others, 1978, p. 257). Vinyl flooring ranged from 

8 to 33 percent asbestos content (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1985, p. A1-A2; National Institutes of Health, 

1991, p. 20).

Textiles

Long spinning grades of chrysotile are used to manufacture textiles for various applications. Group 1, 2, and 3 fiber is 

used for this process. The most important property of textiles 

is fire resistance (Bradfield, 1977, p. 20). Abrasion resistance 

and textile strength also are considered when selecting fiber 

for textile applications. Textiles typically comprise 65 to 100 

percent asbestos (Zielhuis, 1977, p. 27).

Physical, Chemical, and Engineering 

Properties

Physical Properties

Asbestos fibers are characterized by flexibility, high 

tensile strength, large surface area, and resistance to chemical 

attack and thermal degradation. Some varieties of asbestos 

can be woven. Each type of asbestos has different physical 

characteristics, as do the same asbestos types from different 

deposits (table 11).

Chrysotile is a white, fibrous material. The fibers are 

extremely thin, and most are soft and flexible enough to be 

woven. Individual chrysotile fibrils have diameters ranging 

from 25 to 50 nanometers (nm) (Yada, 1967). Commercial 

grades of chrysotile have lengths ranging from a fraction of 

a millimeter to several centimeters (cm), and chrysotile fiber 

bundles can have lengths up to 5 cm (Badollet, 1951; Selikoff 

and Lee, 1978, p. 42-44).

Owing to the extremely small diameters of the individual 

fibrils, tensile strengths measured are of bundles of asbestos 

fibers rather than individual fibers. Consequently, there is a 

wide variation in reported values. Tensile strengths of chrysotile fiber bundles between 1.107 and 4.400 million Pascal 

(MPa) have been reported, making it one of the stronger asbestos types (Sinclair, 1959, p. 287-289; Hodgson, 1986, p. 97).

Chrysotile is heat resistant, and its products are used 

in high-temperature applications. Chrysotile begins to lose 

adsorbed water at around 90o C. Dehydroxylation (loss of the 

hydroxyl in the structure) begins at 640o C and is complete by 

810o C. Above 810o C, the chrysotile structure begins to transform into forsterite and silica (Hodgson, 1986, p. 70-72). The 

fusion temperature for chrysotile is 1,521o C (Badollet, 1951). 

Chrysotile has an extremely large surface area, about 13 to 18 

square meters per gram (m2/g) because of its fibrillar structure 

(Hodgson, 1986, p. 91-94).

Amphibole asbestos fibers generally are harsher and more 

brittle than those of chrysotile. They also are more resistant to 

chemical attack, have high filtration rates and greater hardness (4 to 6 on the Mohs scale), and are comparatively long, 

as much as several inches in length. Their color ranges from 

white for tremolite to yellowish-brown for amosite and lavender or blue for crocidolite (Badollet, 1951). Tensile strengths 

range from 303 MPa for a tremolite asbestos from Pakistan to 

about 3,089 MPa for a crocidolite from South Africa (Sinclair, 

1959, p. 287-289; Aveston, 1969; Hodgson, 1986, p. 95-99). 

All forms of amphibole asbestos withstand temperatures 

exceeding several hundred degrees without degradation. The 

fusion temperature for all asbestiform amphiboles exceeds 

1,224o C. The resistance to attack by acids and bases ranges 

from fair for actinolite asbestos to very good for anthophyllite 

asbestos (Badollet, 1951).

Amphiboles have a surface area of 2 to 9 m2/g (Addison, 

Neal, and White, 1966; Hodgson, 1986, p. 91-94). Amphibole 

fibers generally are more variable in width and less symmetrical than chrysotile fibrils. Franco and others (1977) examined 

samples of crocidolite whose fiber widths ranged from 50 

to 150 nm, although widths of up to 350 nm also have been 

reported for other samples (Wylie, 1979). Lengths of fiber 

bundles up to 8 cm for crocidolite and 30 cm for amosite have 

been reported (Selikoff and Lee, 1978, p. 42-44).

Chemical Properties

The ideal compositions of the asbestos minerals (table 3) 

frequently differ from those observed in deposits. Chrysotile 

fibers almost always contain mineral impurities. Magnetite 

is one of the common impurities and accounts for higher than 

normal iron concentrations. Other impurities may be brucite, 

calcite, chromite, dolomite, and magnesite (Hodgson, 1986, 

p. 55). Measured silicon dioxide content of several chrysotile 

samples varied from 38 to 42 percent; magnesium oxide was 

38 to 42 percent; ferrous oxide, 0.5 to 2.03 percent; and ferric oxide,

 0.10 to 1.6 percent (Hahn-Weinheimer and Hirner, 

1975; Skinner, Ross, and Frondel, 1988, p. 32). Hahn-Weinheimer and Hirner (1975) also reported contents of 0.418 

percent aluminum oxide, 0.019 percent CaO, 0.004 percent 

CoO, 0.006 percent Cr2O3, 0.052 percent MnO, 0.087 percent 

NiO, 0.002 titanium oxide, and 13.8 percent water cation in 

chrysotile samples from Newfoundland and Quebec, Canada 

(table 12).

Physical, Chemical, and Engineering Properties
14 Mineral Commodity Profiles—Asbestos

Table 11. Properties of asbestos fibers

[Ca, calcium; Fe, iron; Mg, magnesium; Na, sodium; NA, not available. Information from Badollet, 1951]

Property Actinolite asbestos Amosite

Anthophyllite 

asbestos Chrysotile Crocidolite

Tremolite asbestos

Structure Reticulated long 

prismatic crystals 

and fibers

Lamellar or 

coarse to fine 

fibrous and 

asbestiform

Lamellar or 

fibrous asbestiform

Usually highly 

fibrous 

fibers, fine 

and easily 

separable

Fibrous in ironstonesLong or prismatic 

and fibrous aggregates

Veining Slip or mass fiber Cross fiber Slip or mass 

fiber

Cross and slip 

fibers

Cross fiber Slip or mass fiber

Essential composition Ca, Mg, Fe silicate 

with some water

Fe, Mg silicate 

with some 

water

Mg silicate with 

some iron

Mg silicate 

with some 

water

Na, Fe silicate 

with some 

water

Ca, Mg silicate 

with some water

Crystal system Monoclinic Monoclinic Orthorhombic Monoclinic Monoclinic Monoclinic

Color Greenish Ash gray or 

brown

Grayish white, 

also browngray or green

White, gray, 

green

Lavender blue, 

metallic blue

Gray-white, greenish, yellowish, 

bluish

Luster Silky Vitreous to pearly Vitreous to 

pearly

Silky Silky to dull Silky

Hardness 6+ 5.5-6.0 5.5-6.0 2.5-4.0 4 5.5

Specific gravity 3.0-3.2 3.1-3.25 2.85-3.1 2.4-2.6 3.2-3.3 2.9-3.2

Optical properties Biaxial negative extinction inclined

Biaxial positive, 

extinction 

parallel

Biaxial positive, 

extinction 

parallel

Biaxial positive 

extinction 

parallel

Biaxial positive, negative, 

extinction 

parallel

Biaxial negative, extinction 

inclined

Refractive index 1.63+ weakly pleochroic

1.64+ 1.61+ 1.51-1.55 1.7 pleochroic 1.61+

Length Short to long 2 to 11 inches, 

varies

Short Short to long Short to long Short to long

Texture Harsh Coarse but somewhat pliable

Harsh Soft to harsh, 

also silky

Soft to harsh Generally harsh, 

sometimes soft

Specific heat, Joules per 

kilogram per Kelvin 

505 449 488 619 468 493

Tensile strength, thousand pascals

6,895 and less 110,316 to 

620,528

27,579 and less 551,581 to 

689,476

689,476 to 

2,068,427

6,895 to 55,158

Temperature at maximum 

ignition loss

NA 871° to 982° C 982° C 982° C 648° C 982° C

Filtration properties Medium Fast Medium Slow Fast Medium

Electric charge Negative Negative Negative Positive Negative Negative

Fusion point 1,393° C 1,399° C 1,468° C 1,521° C 1,229° C 1,316° C

Spinnability Poor Fair Poor Very good Fair Poor

Resistance to acids and 

alkalies 

Fair Good Very good Poor Good Good

Mineral impurities Lime and iron Iron Iron Iron, chrome, 

nickel, and 

lime

Iron Lime

Flexibility Poor Good Poor High Good Poor

Resistance to heat NA Good, brittle at 

high temperature

Very good Good, brittle 

at high temperature

Poor, fuses Fair to good
15

The ideal and observed compositions for asbestiform 

amphiboles also differ significantly because cations readily 

substitute for one another in the amphibole crystal structure 

(table 13). Most commercial amphibole asbestos varieties are 

actinolite asbestos, amosite, anthophyllite asbestos, crocidolite, and tremolite asbestos as defined by the compositional 

guidelines developed by the International Mineralogical Association (Leake and others, 1997). Meeker and others (2003) 

and Wylie and Verkouteren (2000) have also identified asbestiform varieties of magnesioriebeckite, richterite, tremolite, 

and winchite as accessory minerals in a vermiculite deposit in 

Libby, Mont. Meeker and others (2003) further indicated that 

edenite asbestos and magnesioarfvedsonite asbestos also may 

be present in low concentrations. These asbestiform minerals had been identified as soda tremolite, richterite, soda-rich 

tremolite, and tremolite asbestos in past studies of the Libby 

and other vermiculite deposits (Pardee and Larsen, 1929, p. 

17, 24-26; Larsen, 1941, p. 34; Boettcher, 1966).

Chrysotile has a surface charge that can be positive or 

negative depending on its source. Most chrysotile has a positive charge, reflecting the net positive charge of magnesium 

hydroxide cation (MgOH+) layer on the outer surface layer 

of the fiber. Fibers from which weathering has removed its 

MgOH+ layer, exposing the silica-rich layer below, have negative charges (Chowdhry and Kitchener, 1975; Hodgson, 1986, 

p. 62-65). The surface charge for asbestiform amphiboles is 

negative (Ralston and Kitchener, 1975; Hodgson, 1979, p. 

107). The negative charge is attributed to the silica-rich layers 

exposed on the fiber surface. Surface charges are important 

in that they affect the degree that the fiber will disperse in 

suspension and whether or not the fiber will flocculate during 

processing. For example, amphiboles maintain their strongly 

negative surface charge at higher pH levels and remain dispersed under conditions that cause chrysotile to flocculate. 

These properties were used to advantage in highly alkaline 

cement mixes where the amphibole fibers, which are not being 

flocculated, helped to disperse the chrysotile, which would 

normally have flocculated in the cement mix (Hodgson, 1986, 

p. 84).

Strong acids aggressively attack chrysotile. Chrysotile 

also dissolves when exposed to strongly caustic solutions at 

their boiling temperature (Badollet, 1951). Most amphibole 

fiber varieties are more acid resistant than those of chrysotile, but they can experience weight losses of 2 to 23 percent 

through dissolution when exposed to concentrated acids at 

higher temperatures. Actinolite and amosite exhibit greater 

weight loss when exposed to acids than the other amphibole 

asbestos varieties owing to their higher iron contents (Hodgson, 1979, p. 83-85; Virta and Mann, 1994, p. 102).

Uses

Present Uses

Asbestos continues to be used in a variety of applications. The most commonly produced asbestos products on the 

market today include A/C corrugated and flat sheet, panels, 

pipes, tiles, tubes, and tube fittings. Asbestos provides a valuable means of manufacturing these A/C products at low cost 

in regions throughout the world where production costs are an 

issue. Asbestos also continues to be used in brakes. Asbestos 

is used to produce a durable, temperature-resistant lining. The 

Table 12. Major-oxide composition of commercial chrysotile 

samples

[In weight percent. Information from Skinner, Ross, and Frondel, 

1988, p. 32]

Canada Russia Zimbabwe Swaziland

SiO2 38.75 39 39.7 39.93

Al2O3 3.09 4.66 3.17 3.92

Fe2O3 1.59 0.54 0.27 0.1

FeO 2.03 1.53 0.7 0.45

MnO 0.08 0.11 0.26 0.05

MgO 39.78 38.22 40.3 40.25

CaO 0.89 2.03 1.08 1.02

K2O 0.18 0.07 0.05 0.09

Na2O 0.1 0.07 0.04 0.09

H2O+ 12.22 11.37 12.17 12.36

H2O- 0.6 0.77 0.64 0.92

CO2 0.48 1.83 2.13 1.04

Total 99.79 100.2 100.51 100.22

Table 13. Major-oxide composition of amphibole asbestos

[In weight percent. --, zero. Information from Hodgson, 1979, p. 

80-81]

Amosite Actinolite1 Anthophyllite CrocidoliteTremolite

SiO2 49.7 53.8 57.2 50.9 55.1

Al2O3 0.4 1.2 -- Nil 1.14

Fe2O3 0.03 1.9 0.13 16.85 0.32

FeO 39.7 25.3 10.12 20.5 2

MnO 0.22 0.4 -- 0.05 0.1

MgO 6.44 4.3 29.21 1.06 25.65

CaO 1.04 10.2 1.02 1.45 11.45

K2O 0.63 0.4 -- 0.2 0.29

Na2O 0.09 0.1 -- 6.2 0.14

H2O+ 1.83 2.6 2.18 2.37 3.52

H2O- 0.09 Nil 0.28 0.22 0.16

CO2 0.09 0.2 -- 0.2 0.06

Total 100.26 100.4 100.14 100 99.93

1

Ferro-actinolite.

Uses
16 Mineral Commodity Profiles—Asbestos

ready availability of asbestos substitutes and their relatively 

successful incorporation into brake pads and shoes has 

resulted in declining markets for asbestos in braking systems 

in many countries. Asbestos continues to be used in asphalt 

products, coating and compounds, cord, fiber jointing, gaskets, 

magnesium carbonate-base insulation, mastics, millboard, 

paper, textiles, and thread (Moore, 2004; Virta, 2005).

Patterns of Use

In 2003, 4,650 t of chrysotile was used in the United 

States. About 80 percent of that amount was used in asphalt 

roof coatings and sealants; 5 percent, for other coatings and 

compounds; and the remainder, in miscellaneous applications. World consumption was estimated to be about 2.15 Mt 

in 2003. Data are lacking on world end-use markets, but A/C 

products were thought to account for more than 85 percent 

of world consumption. Brake linings accounted for another 

10 percent of the world sales. The remainder was used in a 

variety of applications (Moore, 2004).

An estimated trade distribution for asbestos manufacturing in 2003, based on trade calculations, is shown in figure 

6. Trade data for 2003 suggest that manufacturers in about 65 

countries imported asbestos from the major producer countries 

(United Nations, 2004). Many of the products manufactured 

in these countries are exported, thus world consumption 

of asbestos products is more complex. As an example, the 

United States imported asbestos fiber from 5 countries in 2003 

but imported asbestos products, ranging from brake pads and 

shoes to gaskets to textiles, from a total of 48 countries (U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 2004b).

Historical End-Use Consumption

Based on qualitative descriptions of the asbestos manufacturing industries, A/C products are thought to have dominated the asbestos market since the early 1900s. In the 1930s, 

A/C corrugated and flat sheet, pipe, and roofing tile were the 

major markets for asbestos. The low cost of A/C products, 

their reliability, and the unsophisticated technology required 

to produce A/C products were major factors leading to its 

widespread use, particularly for developing countries with 

limited mineral and monetary resources (Griffiths, 1986, p. 

37; Moore, 2004). Rosato (1959, p. 63) indicated that in 

1959, A/C products for commercial and industrial buildings 

and private homes consumed the largest quantity of asbestos. 

In 1980, A/C products were reported to account for about 66 

percent of world consumption of asbestos. In regions where 

there were alternative construction materials, the demand for 

A/C products was proportionally smaller, and was a much 

wider variety of other asbestos products was developed. In the 

United States and Western European countries, A/C products 

accounted for only 45 percent and 43 percent of the respective markets. With the onset of the asbestos health issue in the 

1970s, demand for asbestos products declined in the United 

States and Western European markets where noncement applications of asbestos dominated at the time. Consequently, the 

percentage of the world market accounted for by A/C products 

increased to 80 percent of the asbestos products market in 

Africa; 76 percent in Asia, Eastern Europe, and South America; and 60 percent in Oceania in 1980 (Roskill Information 

Services, Ltd., 1983, p. 84-86). With the continued decline in 

asbestos use in the 1980s and 1990s, markets have shifted even 

more towards A/C products (the major component of construction products) and away from friction and other products 

(table 14). In 2003, A/C products accounted for more than 85 

percent of the world’s consumption of asbestos (Moore, 2004). 

Other markets for asbestos are asbestos paper, asbestos textiles 

������

������

��������

���

�����

��������

������

�����

�������

����

������

�����

������

����������

�������

������

�������

��������

������

�������

������

����������

������

����

�����

���������

������

����� �����

������ ������

������

��������

�������

������

�������

�������

�������

������

������ �������

Figure 6. Estimated world consumption of asbestos in 2003. Figures listed are in metric tons.
17

(comprising cloth, rope, tape, thread, or yarn), electrical and 

thermal insulation, friction products (including brake or clutch 

pads), and gaskets. Some specialty plastic products are still 

manufactured.

About 37 percent of the total U.S. consumption of asbestos 

has been since 1965, which is the earliest available estimate 

of U.S. asbestos consumption (fig. 3). Thus, a rough idea of 

the markets into which a sizable share of the asbestos went 

throughout most of the history of U.S. asbestos usage can be 

estimated. Table 15 presents the end-use data for asbestos from 

1965 to 2003. The average percentage breakout of the major 

U.S. markets between 1965 and 2003, in decreasing order by 

tonnage, was flooring, 22 percent; A/C pipe, 18 percent; roofing 

products, 12 percent; friction products, 11 percent; A/C sheet, 6 

percent; packing and gaskets, 4 percent; paper, 3 percent; coatings and compounds, electrical insulation, and textiles, 2 percent 

each; plastics and thermal insulation, less than 1 percent each; 

and other, 18 percent (Clifton, 1976, p. 113; 1980b, p. 63; 1985; 

Virta, 1985-1996, 1997-2005.

Because of the asbestos health issue, markets changed during this time period. The largest losses in the United States were 

in A/C pipe and sheet, coatings and compounds, flooring, and 

insulation. In 1965, before the asbestos health issue intensified, 

flooring accounted for 25 percent of the market share, followed 

by A/C pipe, 19 percent; roofing, 9.9 percent; friction products, 

Table 14. World consumption of asbestos in 1974 and 1988

[In thousand metric tons. Information from Roskill Information 

Services Ltd., 1990, p. 98]

ConstructionFriction 

products Other Total

Region 1974 1988 1974 1988 1974 1988 1974 1988

North America 820 90 105 20 225 10 1,150 120

Central and South 

America 

150 190 20 35 20 25 190 250

Western Europe 830 450 60 10 100 20 990 480

Eastern Europe 870 2,100 30 50 150 200 1,050 2,350

Africa 30 40 15 18 5 3 50 61

Asia 680 850 70 18 50 75 800 943

Oceania 170 110 10 1 10 5 190 116

Total 3,550 3,830 310 152 560 338 4,420 4,320

Figure 7. Major U.S. asbestos end uses in 1973, 1980, and 2003. Apparent U.S. consumption was 795,000 metric tons (t) in 1973, 359,000 t 

in 1980, and 5,000 t in 2003. Data from U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1934-1996; Virta, 2005.

A/C products Brakes Flooring Roofing Other

2003

1980

1973

0

50

100

150

200

250

QUANTITY, IN THOUSAND METRIC TONS

Uses
18 Mineral Commodity Profiles—Asbestos Table 15. End uses for asbestos in the United States from 1965 to 2003 [In thousand metric tons. e estimated; --, zero. Data from U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1934-1996; May, 1965; May and Lewis, 1970; Clifton, 1976, 1980, p. 63] Year Asbestos cement Coatings and compounds Flooring products Friction products Electrical insulation Thermal insulation Packing and gaskets Paper products Plastics Roofing products Textiles Other1 Unknown2 Total3 Pipe Sheet 1965e 137 50 (4) 181 64 22 (5) 22 15 (4) 72 15 144 -- 721 1966e 139 51 (4) 183 65 22 (5) 22 14 (4) 73 15 147 -- 730 1967e 122 46 (4) 162 59 20 (5) 20 13 (4) 64 13 132 -- 650 1968e 141 52 (4) 185 67 23 (5) 23 15 (4) 74 15 148 -- 741 1969e 135 50 (4) 178 64 22 (5) 22 14 (4) 72 14 140 -- 711 1970e 126 46 (4) 167 60 20 (5) 20 14 (4) 66 14 133 -- 666 1971e 131 48 (4) 173 62 21 (5) 21 14 (4) 69 13 137 -- 689 1972 140 52 (4) 183 66 22 (5) 22 15 (4) 73 14 147 -- 733 1973 151 58 (4) 198 72 23 (5) 24 16 (4) 79 16 158 -- 795 1974 202 86 (4) 139 73 13 (5) 26 57 (4) 69 18 85 -- 768 1975 139 40 (4) 123 60 6 (5) 15 60 (4) 42 5 62 -- 552 1976 127 21 (4) 104 58 8 (5) 18 28 (4) 231 6 59 -- 659 1977 115 27 36 150 57 17 4 28 7 8 70 10 143 -- 672

1978 106 25 33 138 53 15 4 25 7 7 64 9 133 -- 6191979 96 22 30 125 48 14 3 23 6 7 58 8 121 -- 5611980 42 23 11 70 52 6 3 12 1 2 24 2 111 -- 3591981 42 20 13 67 51 6 1 19 2 1 16 2 109 -- 3491982 38 11 25 49 53 -- 1 14 2 -- 7 1 46 -- 2471983 26 10 23 45 48 -- 1 12 2 1 6 1 42 -- 2171984 37 12 22 46 48 (6) 2 13 2 1 7 2 33 -- 2261985 28 7 23 7 34 (6) (6) 6 17 (6) 26 1 5 7 1621986 20 5 17 5 26 (6) (6) 5 13 (6) 20 (6) 4 4 1201987 11 4 3 -- 21 (6) -- 10 5 1 23 1 2 4 841988 12 4 4 (6) 15 (6) (6) 10 1 (6) 20 (6) (6) 5 711989 8 3 4 -- 12 -- -- 4 1 1 18 (6) 1 4 551990 5 2 2 -- 9 -- -- 3 (6) (6) 13 -- 1 7 411991 4 2 1 -- 10 -- -- 3 (6) (6) 15 -- 1 1 351992 2 (6) 1 -- 10 -- -- 3 (6) (6) 16 -- 1 (6) 331993 1 -- 1 -- 10 -- -- 3 (6) (6) 16 -- 1 (6) 321994 -- -- (6) -- 9 -- -- 3 (6) (6) 13 -- 1 (6) 271995 -- -- (6) -- 7 -- -- 3 (6) (6) 11 -- 1 (6) 221996 -- -- (6) -- 7 -- -- 3 (6) (6) 11 -- 1 (6) 221997 -- -- (6) -- 6 -- -- 4 (6) (6) 10 -- 1 (6) 211998 -- -- (6) -- 3 -- -- 2 1 (6) 9 -- 1 -- 161999 -- -- (6) -- 2 -- -- 3 -- (6) 10 -- 1 -- 162000 -- -- (6) -- 2 -- (6) 3 -- (6) 9 -- 1 -- 152001 -- -- (6) -- 1 -- -- 2 -- (6) 9 -- 1 -- 132002 -- -- (6) -- (6) (6) (6) 1 (6) -- 5 -- (6) -- 72003 -- -- 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 3 -- 1 -- 5

Total7 2,280 776 248 2,680 1,360 279 19 470 339 29 1,490 193 2,250 32 12,400

1Includes known end uses that do not fall into specified end-use categories. 2Undetermined end uses. 3May not add to total owing to independent rounding.4Included in "Other." 5Included in "Electrical insulation." 6Less than 1⁄2 unit. 7Data are rounded to no more than three significant digits.
19

8.9 percent; A/C sheet, 6.9 percent; electrical insulation and packing and gaskets, 3 percent each; paper and textiles, 2 percent each; 

coatings and compounds, thermal insulation, and plastics, less 

than 1 percent each; and unknown uses, 20 percent. By 1980, 

consumption was 19.5 percent for flooring, followed by friction products, 14.5 percent; A/C pipe, 11.7 percent; roofing, 6.7 

percent; A/C sheet, 6.4 percent; packing and gaskets, 3.3 percent; 

coatings and compounds, 3.1 percent; electrical insulation, 1.7 

percent; thermal insulation, 0.8 percent; plastics and textiles, 0.6 

percent each; paper, 0.3 percent; and unknown uses, 30.9 percent. 

In 2003, the end-use markets in the United States were roofing 

(more than 80 percent), coatings and compounds (less than 3 

percent), and unknown uses (about 17 percent) (fig. 7).

This global trend of A/C products accounting for increasingly larger shares of the world asbestos market probably will 

continue. A/C products are still used in regions where reliable 

low-cost pipe and sheet products are required. For other product applications, market penetration by asbestos substitutes 

or alternative products and liability issues almost guarantee a 

continued decline in those markets.

Asbestos Substitutes

As with most minerals, asbestos-containing products faced 

competition from a variety of other materials. The major difference was that the switch to competing materials, namely asbestos 

substitutes and alternative products, was hastened as a result of 

environmental and liability issues. Product manufacturers have 

been replacing asbestos with substitute materials, redesigning old 

products to eliminate the need for asbestos, or designing new products that require neither asbestos nor asbestos substitutes. Some 

of the factors considered in developing the substitutes include substitute cost, additional manufacturing costs, product design costs, 

and product performance (Hodgson, 1985, p. 1-2; Pye, 1989a, p. 

372). In the United States, substitutes have almost entirely replaced 

asbestos in the market. In Europe and a few other locations, bans 

on most applications for asbestos have all but ensured that little 

asbestos will be used after about 2005. Examples of materials substituted for asbestos include aramid fiber, cellulose fibers, ceramic 

fiber, fibrous glass, graphite flake and fiber, mica, polyethylene 

fiber, polypropylene fiber, polytetrafluoroethylene fiber, steel fibers, 

and wollastonite. Examples of alternative products include aluminum, vinyl, and wood siding; aluminum pipe and sheet; asphalt 

coatings; ductile iron pipe; fiberglass sheet; polyvinylchloride pipe; 

prestressed concrete and reinforced concrete pipe; semimetallic 

brakes; urethane coatings; and vinyl composition floors (tables 16 

and 17; Hodgson, 1985, p. 125-218; U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1988, p. 1.1-35.10; Pye, 1989b, p. 342-370; Roskill Information Services, Ltd., 1990, p. 90-126; Harrison and others, 1999). 

No single substitute has proved to be as versatile as asbestos. In 

addition, there are few regulations specifically for occupational 

exposure to substitute fibers, and the potential health effects resulting from long-term exposures to many of the substitute fibers have 

not been well documented.

Dissipative Uses

Asbestos usage is dissipative as there is no recycling; 

products that no longer function adequately are discarded. With 

current opposition to the use of asbestos and even its presence in 

buildings, many serviceable asbestos products are removed for 

disposal before reaching their normal functional lifespan.

Sources

Principal Deposits

Major chrysotile deposits occur in mountain chains of 

all ages where there has been widespread metamorphism (fig. 

8). Large deposits in the Ural Mountains in Russia and the 

Appalachian Mountains in Canada and the United States are 

classic examples.

Table 16. Asbestos substitutes1

[Sources: Meylan and others, 1978; Hodgson, 1985, 1989; U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 1988; Harrison and others, 1999]

Acicular to fibrous morphology2: Nonfibrous morphology:

Aramid fiber Biotite

Carbon fiber Calcium carbonate

Cellulose fiber Calcium silicate

Ceramic fiber Diatomite

Fiberglass Fibrillated polypropylene

Mineral wool Graphite

Nylon fiber Muscovite

Palygorskite (attapulgite) Perlite

Polyacrylonitrile fiber Serpentine

Polybenzimidazole fiber Silica

Polyethylene fiber Talc

Polypropylene fiber Vermiculite

Polytetrafluoroethylene fiber

Polyvinyl alcohol fiber

Potassium titanate fibers

Sepiolite

Steel fiber

Wollastonite

Wool

1

Materials in bold type are the more commonly used asbestos substitutes.

2

Dependent on material; for example, wollastonite is acicular and palygorskite (attapulgite) is fibrous, while polytetrafluoroethylene can be manufactured in nonfibrous or fiber shapes.

Sources
20 Mineral Commodity Profiles—Asbestos

Origin and Modes of Geologic Occurrence

The host rock for most of the world’s chrysotile production is ultrabasic in composition (Bates, 1969; Ross and Virta, 

2001). These can be categorized as Type I or Type II deposits. 

Type I deposits occur in alpine-type ultramafic rocks, including ophiolites and serpentinites. Type II deposits occur in 

stratiform ultramafic intrusions. The remaining chrysotile 

production is derived from serpentinized dolomitic limestone, 

also called Type III deposit. Amosite and crocidolite are 

Table 17. Examples of asbestos substitutes and alternative products

[Sources: Meylan and others, 1978; Hodgson, 1985, 1989; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1988; Roskill Information Services Ltd., 

1990; Harrison and others, 1999]

Product category Asbestos substitute or alternative product

Asbestos cement (A/C) pipe Cellulose fibers, ductile iron, fiberglass, mica, polyacrylonitrile and polyvinyl alcohol fiber, polyvinyl chloride pipe, prestressed concrete, reinforced concrete pipe, wollastonite

A/C sheet Aluminum siding, cellulose fibers, corrugated fiberglass panels, corrugated polyvinyl chloride panel, fiberglass, fibrillated polypropylene, polyacrylonitrile and polyvinyl alcohol fiber, vinyl siding, wood

Coatings and compounds Aramid fiber, carbon fiber, cellulose fiber, clay, fiberglass, polyethylene films, limestone, rubber membrane 

roofing, mica, polyethylene fiber, polypropylene fiber, talc, wollastonite

Flooring Carpeting, ceramic tile, clay, fiberglass, polyethylene pulp, silica, talc, vinyl compositions, wood

Friction Aramid fibers, cellulose, ceramic fiber, fiberglass, metal (brass, bronze, copper, iron) fibers, palygorskite (attapulgite), polyacrylonitrile fiber, potassium titanate, semimetallic brakes, sepiolite, steel fibers, vermiculite, wollastonite

Insulation Calcium silicate board, cement board, ceramic fiber, fiberglass, mica, mineral wool, vermiculite

Packings and gaskets Aramid fiber, carbon fiber, cellulose fiber, ceramic fiber, cork, fiberglass, graphite, mica, metal gaskets, 

mineral wool, polytetrafluoroethylene, rubber sheeting

Paper and paperboard Ceramic fiber, cellulose, fiberglass, mica, polytetrafluoroethylene, vermiculite, wollastonite

Pipe wrap Nonfibrous minerals, plastic coatings, urethane coatings

Plastics Aramid fiber, carbon fiber, fiberglass, fumed silica powder, mica, polytetrafluoroethylene, potassium titanate, wollastonite

Tape Carbon-base tape, cellulose, urethane tape

Textile Aramid fiber, carbon fiber, ceramic fiber, fiberglass, mineral wool, polybenzimidazole fiber

Figure 8. World asbestos resources. Sources: Virta and Mann, 1994, p. 104-105.

����� �����

�������

�����������

�������������

�����������
21

found in metamorphosed ferruginous sedimentary formations, 

also referred to as Type IV deposits. Commercially viable 

deposits are in banded ironstones, ferruginous quartzites, and 

iron-rich silicified argillite (Ross and Virta, 2001). Tremolite 

asbestos and anthophyllite asbestos are associated with metamorphosed ultrabasic rocks.

Ultrabasic deposits encompass the Type I and Type II 

deposits. Type I deposits account for about 90 percent of the 

world production of asbestos and generally contain crossor slip-fiber veins of asbestos. Examples of these types of 

deposits occur throughout the world, with the largest being 

in Quebec and the Ural Mountains in Russia (Ross, 1984, p. 

56). Typical of Type I deposits are the chrysotile deposits 

in the Eastern Townships area of Quebec. These deposits 

occur along a major serpentine belt that arcs northeastward 

into the Gaspe Peninsula and southward into the Appalachian 

Mountains belt of Vermont (Lamarche and Riordon, 1981; 

Ross, 1981, p. 296-299). Another variation of Type I deposits is the chrysotile deposits in ultrabasic rock near Coalinga, 

Calif. Unlike the deposits in Canada and Russia, the Coalinga deposit is a mass fiber deposit of chrysotile. Instead 

of the fiber being present in veins as cross- or slip-fibers, it 

is distributed throughout the entire rock mass. Boulders of 

massive serpentinized material are scattered throughout the 

loose platy serpentine. Ancient landslides, for which there is 

evidence, may have contributed to the extreme deformation 

of the serpentine. The ore contains abundant short chrysotile 

fiber (Munro and Reim, 1962; Ross, 1981, p. 298).

The most productive of the Type II deposits are in South 

Africa, Swaziland, and Zimbabwe (Ross, 1981, p. 299-300; 

1984, p. 56). The Shabani deposit, east of Bulawayo, Zimbabwe, is a good example of Type II deposits. Chrysotile formed 

in an altered portion of a lenticular ultrabasic sill (Virta and 

Mann, 1994, p. 107). This deposit, in particular, is reknowned 

for its low iron content resulting from the low concentration of 

magnetite in the fiber as well as its long fiber length (Sinclair, 

1959, p. 76; Ross and Virta, 2001).

Comparatively small tonnages of asbestos were mined 

from Type III or serpentinized dolomitic limestones (Hall, 

1930, p. 324; Rowbotham, 1970; Ross, 1981, p. 300-301; 

1984, p. 56). Much of such fiber is of high quality and free of 

the magnetite that is commonly associated with most deposits 

of ultrabasic origin. Chrysotile of this type was mined in the 

Carolina District in the Transvaal area of South Africa and 

in the Salt River and Sierra Ancha regions in Arizona. The 

Arizona deposits, northeast of Globe, are tabular in shape and 

occur in serpentinized dolomitic limestones, altered through 

contact metamorphism. Serpentinization occurred during the 

intrusion of diabase sills. Chrysotile is found in thin discontinuous veins (Wilson, 1928, p. 57-58; U.S. Bureau of Mines, 

1945, p. 1; Stewart, 1955, p. 100-113; Li, 1975).

Examples of Type IV deposits occur in South Africa 

where crocidolite and amosite are found in deposits known as 

banded ironstone, ferruginous quartzite, or iron-rich silicified 

argillites formations. Crocidolite is found over a large area 

of Cape Province in a belt of the Lower Griquatown series of 

the Transvaal system. Crocidolite and amosite are found in 

similar formations near Pietersburg in northern Transvaal. In 

some places, the two varieties are side by side in the same 

vein. An amosite-bearing banded ironstone formation crops 

out for a distance of more than 30 kilometers (km) near Penge 

in the Lydenburg District of the Transvaal. Thin, persistent 

sills of dolerite that are conformable with the bedding have 

intruded this sequence (Hall, 1930; Sinclair, 1959, p. 82-87; 

Dreyer and Robinson, 1981, p. 26-32; Ross, 1981, p. 288-292; 

1984, p. 56).

Of the countries in which anthophyllite asbestos deposits 

are known, Finland was the most important producer with 

major deposits at Paakkila in the parish of Tuusniemi in eastern Finland and Maljasalmi in Kuusjarvi Parish. The Finnish 

anthophyllite asbestos deposits consist of a series of lenses of 

amphibolitized and serpentinized ultrabasic material (Sinclair, 

1959, p. 97; Ross, 1981, p. 292-294; Mann, 1983, p. 456; Ross 

and Virta, 2001, p. 80).

Most U.S. anthophyllite asbestos production is associated with deposits near Green Mountain in Yancey County, 

N.C., although other deposits also were mined in the past. The 

Green Mountain deposits are associated with altered peridotites and pyroxenites. Most of the deposits consist of mass 

fiber, although cross and slip fiber are more common in other 

parts of the State. Similar types of deposits also were mined 

in Georgia in the United States (McCallie, 1910; p. 33-36; 

Teague, 1956; Conrad and others, 1963, p. 7-21).

Italy has produced some long fiber tremolite from small 

deposits at Val Malenco in the Sondrio District, 100 km north 

of Milan. Tremolite fiber has been found in the Aosta District 

north of Turin in the Italian Alps.

Amphibole asbestos also has been found in Bulgaria, 

India, Romania, Taiwan, Turkey, and Yugoslavia. Most of the 

Indian production is from Rajasthan. Some deposits of fibrous 

actinolite have been reported but production is extremely low.

Worldwide, the amount of asbestos contained in the rock 

varies widely between deposits. An asbestos content of about 

5 percent is typical of most large chrysotile deposits. Ross 

(1981, p. 298) reported that the chrysotile content of the mass 

fiber deposit in Coalinga can approach 50 percent. In general, 

companies mine only the ore that contains higher concentrations of asbestos. Thus, the mill feed will have a 1 to 2 

percent greater asbestos content than the mined rock. Worldwide, asbestos concentration in the mill feed is generally in 

the range of 2 to 10 percent asbestos. Only in a few locations 

were concentrations lesser or greater (table 18).

Reserves and Resources

The definitions of reserves and reserve base as published 

in the U.S. Geological Survey circular titled “Principles of a 

Resource/Reserve Classification for Minerals” are reprinted 

in the appendix (U.S. Bureau of Mines and U.S. Geological Survey, 1980). World reserves and reserve base in 1990 

Reserves and Resources
22 Mineral Commodity Profiles—Asbestos

Table 18. Property resource information as of January 1982

[Recoverable fiber in percent and demonstrated recoverable fiber in thousand metric tons. do, ditto. A, amosite; Ch, chrysotile; Cr, 

crocidolite; N, nonproducer; P, producer; PP, past producer. Information from Anstett and Porter, 1985, p. 7]

Property location 

and name

Owner Status1Fiber 

grades

Fiber 

type

Recoverable 

fiber

Demonstrated 

recoverable 

fiber

United States:

Alaska: Slate 

Creek 

Tanana Asbestos Corp.; GCO 

Minerals 

N 4 Ch 6.0-7.9 3,186.40

Arizona: El Dorado Jaquays Mining Corp. PP 3, 4, 7 Ch 6.0-7.9 3.7

California: 

Calaveras Calaveras Asbestos Corp. PP 4, 5, 6 Ch 2.0-3.9 278.3

Christie Tenneco Oil Co. PP 7 Ch Greater than 11.9 788.3

Santa Rita Union Carbide PP 7 Ch Greater than 11.9 2,926.40

Vermont: Lowell Vermont Asbestos Company, Inc. PP 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Ch 2.0-3.9 534.7

Total 7,717.80

Australia: Woodsreef Woodsreef Mines Ltd. PP 4, 5, 6 Ch 6.0-7.9 482.5

Brazil: Cana Brava S.A. Mineracao de Amianto P 4, 5, 6 Ch 6.0-7.9 3,621.50

Canada:

Abitibi Abitibi Asbestos & Brinco Ltd. N 4, 5, 6, 7 Ch 2.0-3.9 1,679.40

Asbestos Hill La Societe National l’Amiante P 4, 5, 7 Ch 6.0-7.9 1,132.90

Baie Verte Baie Verte Mines, Inc PP 4, 5, 6 Ch 2.0-3.9 1,046.30

Bell La Societe National l’Amiante P 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Ch 6.0-7.9 1,084.00

Black Lake Lac d'Amiante du Quebec Lte. and 

United Asbestos Corp. Ltd.

P 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Ch 2.0-3.9 3,299.60

British Canadian La Societe National l’Amiante PP 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Ch 2.0-3.9 1,834.20

Carey Canada Jim Walters Corp. PP 4, 5, 6, 7 Ch 8.0-9.9 3,021.30

Cassiar Brinco Mining Ltd. PP 3, 4, 5, 6 Ch 8.0-9.9 1,986.00

Jeffrey Johns-Manville Canada Inc. PP 4, 5, 6, 7 Ch 6.0-7.9 17,954.90

King-Beaver La Societe National l’Amiante P 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Ch 4.0-5.9 3,712.80

Midlothian United Asbestos Inc. PP 4, 5, 6, 7 Ch 6.0-7.9 3,625.40

National Lac d'Aminate Quebec Lte. PP 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Ch 4.0-5.9 983.3

Penhale La Societe National l’Amiante N 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Ch 4.0-5.9 1,173.40

Roberge Lake McAdam Mining Corp. Ltd. N 5, 6, 7 Ch 2.0-3.9 2,818.80

Total 45,352.30

Colombia: Las Brisas Minera Las Brisas S.A. P 4, 6 Ch 4.0-5.9 362.9

Cyprus: Amiandos Cyprus Asbestos Mines Ltd. PP 3, 4 Ch Less than 1.9 565.2

Greece: Zidani Asbestos Mines of Northern 

Greece 

PP 4, 5, 6 Ch 2.0-3.9 3,706.60

Italy: Balangero Amiantifera di Balangero SpA. PP 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Ch 4.0-5.9 5,198.40

Mexico: Pegaso Cia. Minera Pegaso S.A. N 5, 6, 7 Ch 4.0-5.9 2,185.00

Africa:

Danielskuil General Mining Union Corp. PP 3, 4 Cr 6.0-7.9 70.3

Elcor do PP 3, 4 Cr 10.0-11.9 728.5

Emmarentia Lonhro Ltd. PP 3, 4 Cr 8.0-9.9 50.2
23

were estimated to be 110 Mt and 143 Mt, respectively (Virta, 

1990). Declining demand for asbestos worldwide has resulted 

in mine closures or reduced production. This has meant a loss 

of reserves and resources. There have been sizable reserve 

losses in Australia, Canada, Cyprus, Finland, Greece, Italy, 

South Africa, Swaziland, and the United States as mines were 

closed. Anstett and Porter (1985) determined that past producers account for the bulk of the reserves outside of China, 

Kazakhstan, and Russia (table 18). However, new reserves 

have been delineated in currently mined ore bodies since 1990. 

Also, declining markets have resulted in lower mine output 

and a corresponding extension of reserve life. Reserves and 

resources in operating mine locations should satisfy future 

needs for even the distant future.

Mining and Processing

Exploration Techniques

Magnetic surveys often are used to locate ultrabasic rock 

bodies and define potential asbestos ore deposits because of 

their association with secondary magnetite formed during 

extensive serpentinization. Many asbestos deposits in ultrabasic rocks contain more magnetite than does barren serpentine.

Once the deposit is discovered and roughly delineated 

using remote sensing techniques, diamond drilling is used to 

assess and define the limits of an asbestos deposit, usually 

using a wide spacing (often a 61-meter interval). A narrower 

interval is used when an asbestos-bearing zone is encountered. 

The spacing is adjusted to account for the shape and orientation of the ore body. Trenching or the use of adits or shafts 

and lateral workings may be used to assess a deposit when 

drilling is impractical.

The asbestos deposit then is evaluated for its fiber yield 

or grade, quality of fiber, and size (Dean and Mann, 1968, 

p. 281-286; Conn and Mann, 1971; Stewart, 1981). Yield 

and quality of fiber are evaluated using laboratory and visual 

methods. The simplest method for determining yield is a 

visual method using drill-core sections in which the fiber vein 

width in the core and the core length are used to estimate fiber 

content.

After the fiber yield of the ore is determined, the value of 

the fiber, and the per-ton-value of the ore must be estimated. 

The fiber is graded using the QS Test (Asbestos Textile Institute and Quebec Asbestos Mining Association, 1975). This 

test is performed on the QS testing machine, as described in 

the “Grades, Shapes and Specifications” portion of the “Commercial Forms, Grades, Shapes, and Specifications” section. 

When the weight of the fiber on each screen and in the bottom 

of the pan has been determined, multiplication factors are 

applied to the weight in each size fraction, giving a total point 

score for the sample. The average fiber value is determined 

by comparing the point score to a graph of point-score-versusfiber-value that was previously developed for this or similar 

deposits. Using the average fiber value, the indicated ore 

value can be calculated.

Table 18. Property resource information as of January 1982—Continued

[Recoverable fiber in percent and demonstrated recoverable fiber in thousand metric tons. do, ditto. A, amosite; Ch, chrysotile; Cr, 

crocidolite; N, nonproducer; P, producer; PP, past producer. Information from Anstett and Porter, 1985, p. 7]

Property location 

and name

Owner Status1Fiber 

grades

Fiber 

type

Recoverable 

fiber

Demonstrated 

recoverable 

fiber

Penge do PP 3, 4 A Greater than 11.9 802.1

Pomfret do PP 3, 4, 6 Cr 6.0-7.9 391.5

Riries do PP 3, 4 Cr 6.0-7.9 40

Senekal do PP 5, 6, 7 Ch 2.0-3.9 87.4

Wandrag Lonhro Ltd. PP 3, 4 Cr 6.0-7.9 61.8

Whitebank General Mining Union Corp. PP 3, 4 Cr 8.0-9.9 123.8

Total 3,111.90

Swaziland: Havelock Turner & Newall, Ltd.; Swazi 

nation 

PP 4, 5 Ch 2.0-3.9 217.8

Zimbabwe:

Gath's Turner & Newell, Ltd. P 4, 5 Ch 2.0-3.9 449.6

King do P 4, 5 Ch 6.0-7.9 2,282.00

Shabanie do P 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Ch 4.0-5.9 2,842.60

Total 5,574.20

Grand total 78,096.10

1

Updated for 2003.

Mining and Processing
24 Mineral Commodity Profiles—Asbestos

Mining

At least an estimated 80 percent of the chrysotile mined 

in 2003 was extracted using open pit mining techniques. 

Economy, fiber recovery, grade control, and safety are 

improved using open pit mining in most cases. Typical open 

pit mines are designed with multiple bench levels, and the pit 

width expands as the depth of mining increases. Blasting is 

required to fracture the ore. Front-end loaders or backhoes are 

used to load large haulage trucks. An in-pit crusher may be 

used to simplify handling (Bernier, 1984; Anstett and Porter, 

1985, p. 11-13; Virta and Mann, 1994, p. 113).

Underground mining is used when open pit mining is 

inefficient. Several underground methods have been used (fig. 

9). Sublevel stoping and caving may be initiated by blasting 

holes drilled upward from sublevel cross cuts, starting first on 

the hanging-wall side and retreating over a considerable width 

toward the footwall; the same method is used along the strike 

of the ore. In the sublevel stoping method, a slot also may be 

opened across the center of the ore body. The holes that are 

fanned out from the sublevel drifts are blasted toward the slot, 

and mining proceeds as a systematic retreat in two directions 

away from the opening. Room and pillar mining also has been 

used in some locations (Dreyer and Robinson, 1981, p. 22-36; 

Anstett and Porter, 1985, p. 13).

Processing

Mill feed is derived from the underground or pit operation. Primary crushing may be done in underground stations, 

in the case of an underground mine, or in a surface plant, in 

the case of an open pit mine. Jaw or gyratory crushers are 

used. Some hand sorting may still be used in countries where 

labor rates are low. Hand sorting removes barren rock and 

recovers pieces of the larger veins used to produce Nos. 1 or 2 

crudes.

Ore concentration is an important step in the milling of 

chrysotile ore and is particularly important for lower grade ore 

bodies. It is not uncommon to discard as much as 40 percent 

of the mine ore through selective crushing and screening in the 

primary and secondary crushing circuits. Some producers use 

magnetic pulleys for upgrading the mine ore, although not all 

asbestos ore bodies are amenable to this type of separation.

The ore is then dried. The two most commonly used 

dryers are rotary and vertical dryers. Fluidized-bed dryers also 

have been used. Generally, there is less mechanical damage to 

the fiber when vertical-tower and fluidized-bed dryers are used 

than when rotary kiln-type dryers are used. However, rotary 

dryers are preferable and are more effective for open pit ores 

that can contain snow and ice.

Chrysotile fiber is released and separated from gangue 

by successive stages of crushing. Impactors are designed to 

release the fiber from the host rock and at the same time produce a minimum of fines. Fiber released by crushing is lifted 

by air suction, leaving most of the rock as a reject to go to the 

next stage of impacting and eventually to tailings.

The concentrates undergo a series of cleaning operations 

for the purpose of removing sand and dust. Screens, trommels, and specific-gravity air separators further clean the fiber 

and separate it into standard-grade lengths.

In the grading mill, the fiber within each grade is further 

subdivided according to fiber quality. It is then subjected to 

several stages of screenings by means of shaking screens, 

gyratory screens, conventional trommels, trommel-like graders, and rotary dusters.

When well-opened or fluffed-out grades are required, 

the fiber is specially processed in one or more of a variety of 

machines. These range from graders or Willows mills (a fixed 

cylindrical casing with a rotating center shaft to which beater 

arms are attached) to one of several types of high-speed hammer mills, disk grinders, or pulverizers. The type of machine 

or machines used depends on the length and type of fiber to be 

processed and the degree of opening or fluffing required. This 

additional treatment is generally given to the shorter fibers 

(Bernier, 1984; Sinclair, 1959, p. 176-252; Virta and Mann, 

1994, p. 113-118; fig. 10).

Figure 9. Generalized block caving method used in underground 

mining of asbestos. Adapted from Sinclair, 1959, p. 412.

���� ����

������ ���

��� ���� ������ ����

�������� �����

������� �����

������� �����

������� �����

��� ������
25

Chrysotile may also be processed using a wet process. British patent application WD 83/04190A of 1983 describes a twostage Australian wet process. In the first stage, crushed chrysotile 

ore, slurried with water, is crushed and ground to release asbestos 

fibers and open the fiber bundles. The fibers are then concentrated using screw classifiers and spiral concentrators. In the 

second stage, the concentrated fibers are cleaned by low-pressure 

hydrocyclones and then separated into well- and poorly opened 

fibers by high-pressure hydrocycloning. Poorly opened fibers are 

mechanically milled and recycled. The well-opened concentrates 

are dewatered by high-pressure filtration. According to the patent 

application, the process concentrate yields are at least equal to 

those obtained by the conventional dry process and the process 

is suitable for reclaiming fibers from dry process tailings and 

capable of treating the low-grade ores that the dry process cannot 

handle (Clifton, 1985).

Coproducts and Byproducts

There has been only limited production of byproducts 

associated with asbestos production. A byproduct to improve 

vehicle traction on icy and snowy roads was made using 

asbestos tailings from a mine in Vermont. The market for this 

product ended when concerns over the potential fiber content 

of the product arose.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the Société National 

d’Amiante (SNA), Quebec, attempted to utilize the large 

amount of tailings from asbestos production. The SNA constructed a plant to extract magnesium metal from the tailings, 

but the operation was not commercially viable. The SNA also 

was involved with Noranda Mines Corp. to use asbestos tailings to remove sulfur dioxide from stack emissions, producing 

a magnesium sulfate for use by the fertilizer and the paper 

and pulp industries (Roskill Information Services, Ltd., 1983, 

p. 38). In 1999, interest in magnesium metal extraction was 

revived, and several plants were designed and/or constructed 

(Cassiar Mines and Metals Inc., 1999; Heinzl, 1999). Despite 

the technological advances since the 1980s, extracting magnesium from serpentinite tailings again proved to be unprofitable 

under current economic conditions, and no extraction plants 

are operating at this time.

Recycling

Recycling of asbestos products is not attempted. Most 

products were designed with an extremely long life, and the 

incorporation of the fiber into a matrix makes separation 

difficult or impossible. There are few asbestos uses, mainly 

textile, that have uncombined fibers in the end product. There 

may also be physical and/or chemical changes to the fiber durFigure 10. Generalized flowsheet for asbestos milling process. Adapted from Clifton, 1980b, p. 61.

��� ����

������� ��� ��������� ��������

��� ���������

���� ������ �������

������

��������� �����������

��� ������

����� ��������� �������

��� ����������

�����

���������

��������

����� ������������

����������� �������� ��� ������

����� �

�����

����� �

�����

������ � ���

� �����

����� �

�����

��������

��������

�����

�����

Recycling
26 Mineral Commodity Profiles—Asbestos

ing manufacture and use, so any recovered fiber would be of 

less value than the reclamation costs and more costly than virgin fiber (Clifton, 1985). In such products as brake pads and 

shoes and equipment clutches, the product wears, and asbestos 

is abraded away, so recycling is not possible.

Environmental Impact

Asbestos has an environmental impact in several ways. 

Open pit mines require the clearing of land and extraction of 

ore. Barren rocks or rocks that are low in fiber content are 

stockpiled onsite. Mill waste and tailings, similarly, are stockpiled near the mill site. These tailings represent a potential 

source of fiber release into the atmosphere and in water runoff. 

While concentrations of fiber generally are low in these tailings, in some locations the concentrations are sufficiently 

high to consider fiber recovery. Johns-Manville Corp. was 

recovering short (Group 6) fiber from ore tailing as early as 

the 1970s at their Asbestos, Quebec, operation. Fiber recovery 

from the ore tailing was undertaken to improve the efficiency 

of the mining and milling operation. Recoverable fiber averaged about 5.6 percent (Pit and Quarry, 1970). More recently, 

consideration was given to recovering fiber from tailings as 

a means of producing fiber without incurring the expense of 

mining. Around 2000, Minroc Mines Inc., briefly recovered 

chrysotile from tailings at a former mine in Cassiar, British 

Columbia, but stopped recovery of the fiber following a fire in 

the mill (Canada NewsWire, 2000). Teranov Mining Co. also 

recovered chrysotile from ore tailings for a short time period at 

a former chrysotile mine in Newfoundland (Industrial Minerals, 1993). The concentration of recoverable fiber in the 

tailings of the Newfoundland site was 2.2 percent (Stewart, 

French, and Anthony, 1990). The mines and mills in British 

Columbia and Newfoundland are now closed.

In most cases, mining poses minimal threat to the general 

population because mining operations are located in remote 

areas; sometimes however, towns were established near the 

mine or mill sites for the convenience of the workers. Operations in the United States and in many other countries have 

to comply with environmental standards for fiber release into 

the air and water. They also have to comply with Government 

regulations for worker exposure to fibers within the workplace. In the United States, these regulations are enforced by 

the U.S. Department of Labor and the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (Mine Safety and Health Administration, 

2004; Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 2004; 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2004b).

Industry Structure

The asbestos industry comprises a variety of company 

types. At one time, large international companies, such as 

Cape Asbestos Ltd., ETEX Group (formerly known as Eternit 

Group), General Mining Union Corp., Jim Walters Corp., 

Johns Manville Corp., Turner and Newel Ltd., and Union Carbide dominated the industry (Clifton, 1979, p. 3; 1980b, p. 57; 

1985, p. 54). Only Eternit Group has maintained a connection 

with asbestos production through a few small subsidiaries, 

such as Eternit SA in Brazil (Roskill Information Services, 

Ltd., 1995, p. 12). Most mines are operated by smaller investment groups, such as LAB Chrysotile, Inc. in Canada, or by 

subsidiaries of companies not directly involved in the asbestos 

industry, such as African Resources, Ltd. in Zimbabwe. In 

China, there are many independent operators with only one or 

two larger producers. In Kazakhstan and Russia, the mines are 

operated as joint stock combines (JSC), which now are fundamentally independent operations. These large JSC companies 

have been operating for most of the 20th century but have 

been transformed as political changes take place in the former 

Soviet Union. Most mining companies sell fiber on the open 

market to nonaffiliated manufacturing entities (Clarke, 1982, 

p. 31-37; Roskill Information Services, Ltd., 1990, p. 1-64; 

1995, p. 1-26; Moore, 2004).

Producers

Brazil, Canada, China, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Zimbabwe accounted for more than 95 percent of production in 2003 

(table 2). Excluding China, about nine companies undertook 

production in these countries. In China, one major producer 

accounted for about 20 percent of the production, while 

numerous small companies accounted for the rest. Asbestos 

also was produced in Argentina, Bulgaria, Colombia, India, 

and Iran. Only one or two companies produced asbestos in 

these countries, except for India, where several small producers accounted for the country’s production of primarily 

tremolite asbestos (Moore, 2004; Roskill Information Services 

Ltd., 1995, p. 1-26).

In Brazil, the sole producer of asbestos is Sociedada 

Anonima Mineraçoa de Amianto Ltda., which is owned by 

Eternit SA and Brasilit SA. The company mines chrysotile at 

its Cana Brava mine north of Brasilia.

In Canada, the only producers are Lab Chrysotile Inc. and 

Jeffrey Mines Inc. Both companies mine only chrysotile. Lab 

Chrysotile owns Bell Asbestos Mines Ltd., which operates the 

Bell mine near Thetford Mines, Quebec, and Lac d’Amiante 

du Quebec Ltee., which operates the Black Lake mine near 

Thetford Mines. The Black Lake mine was closed for an 

indefinite period of time starting in 2004 (Mining Engineering, 

2004). Jeffrey Mine Inc. operates its Jeffrey mine, near Asbestos, Quebec. In 2004, the mine was operating on a part-time 

basis (Gazette Montreal, 2003).

In China, Mang Ya Asbestos Mine, operating near Mang 

Ya, was the largest producer of asbestos (chrysotile) but there 

also were numerous other small producers of asbestos.

Production in Kazakhstan and Russia is exclusively 

chrysotile. JSC Kostanaiasbest operates a mine in Dzhetygarinsk, Kazakhstan. In Russia, JSC Uralasbest operates a mine 
27

in Sverdlovsk; JSC Orenburgasbest operates a mine in Orenburg; and JSC Tuvaasbest operates a mine in Tuva.

African Resources Ltd., through its subsidiary, African 

Associated Mines, operates the Shabanie chrysotile mine, 

south of Gweru, Zimbabwe, and the Gaths chrysotile mine, 

west of Masvingo.

The companies that mine asbestos almost always 

also process the crude asbestos. Exceptions would be for 

extremely small producing companies, possibly in China and 

India. Most companies, however, sell their processed fiber to 

other companies for the manufacture of products.

Consumers

During the peak years, manufacturing companies were 

using asbestos in about 3,000 asbestos products or product 

categories (Quebec Asbestos Information Service, 1959, p. 19-

20). The leading consumers of asbestos were the construction 

and automobile industries. The construction industry required 

asbestos for A/C products, flooring, insulation, plasters, roofing, siding, and wallboard. The automobile industry used 

asbestos for brake lining and shoes, underbody coatings, and 

gaskets. Various other industries used asbestos in insulation, 

packing, and textiles.

The manufacturing industry that produced these materials 

is a mix of large and small companies. Large, often international, corporations manufacture such products as A/C pipe 

and sheet, brake pads and shoes, insulation board and paper, 

vinyl-asbestos tile, and wallboard. Other products, such as 

packing, asbestos-reinforced plastics, stucco paints, spackles, and textiles, may be manufactured by smaller companies 

because large economy of scale was not required to be competitive in those segments of the industry. In most countries, 

use of asbestos products has declined, and major corporations 

have withdrawn from the industry. However, large national 

manufacturing companies probably continue to operate in 

China, Kazakhstan, Russia, Thailand, and Ukraine.

All nations had a need for these asbestos products in the 

past, so manufacturing facilities are found worldwide. The 

industry thrived until the asbestos health issue arose. From 

1900 through the 1960s, the United States was the leading 

manufacturer and consumer of asbestos products (table 19). 

Table 19. Asbestos production, trade, and consumption in 1960

[In metric tons. e estimated; NA, not available; --, zero. Information from Virta, 2003b, p. 36-37]

Region and country Production Imports Exports

Consumption

Apparent1 Estimated2

Africa:

Algeria -- 6,189 -- 6,189 NA

Angola -- 819 -- 819 NA

Botswana 1,163 -- -- 1,163 NA

Egypt 450 6,583 -- 7,033 NA

Kenya 106 -- 29 76 NA

Morocco -- 2,676 -- 2,676 NA

Mozambique 20 720 80 660 NA

South Africa 159,551 NA 193,696 -34,145 NA

Swaziland 29,055 -- 25,403 3,653 NA

Tunisia -- 2 -- 2 NA

Uganda -- 830 -- 830 NA

Zimbabwe 121,537 116,060 5,477 NA

Total 311,883 17,820 335,268 1-5,565 28,580

Asia and the Middle East:

Burma -- 468 -- 468 NA

China 81,288 -- -- 81,288 NA

Formosa (Taiwan) 440 1,047 -- 1,487 NA

Hong Kong -- 22 -- 22 NA

India 1,711 21,967 26 23,652 NA

Indonesia -- 588 -- 588 NA

Iran -- 1,246 -- 1,246 NA

Industry Structure
28 Mineral Commodity Profiles—Asbestos

Table 19. Asbestos production, trade, and consumption in 1960—Continued

[In metric tons. e estimated; NA, not available; --, zero. Information from Virta, 2003b, p. 36-37]

Region and country Production Imports Exports

Consumption

Apparent1 Estimated2

Asia and the Middle East—Continued:

Lebanon -- 2,258 -- 2,258 NA

Malaysia -- 2,868 -- 2,868 NA

Philippines 33 1,236 -- 1,268 NA

Thailand -- 6,433 -- 6,433 NA

Turkey 216 470 5 682 NA

Total 99,780 122,728 68 222,440 222,440

Europe:

Austria -- 12,767 63 12,764 NA

Belgium-Luxembourg -- 53,990 297 53,694 NA

Bulgaria 1,118 -- -- 1,118 NA

Cyprus 21,153 -- 15,575 5,578 NA

Czechoslovakia -- 27,422 -- 27,422 NA

Denmark -- 17,440 26 17,414 NA

Finland 9,556 4,446 5,551 8,452 NA

France 25,583 68,592 10,790 83,385 NA

Germany, East -- e35,000 -- e35,000 NA

Germany, West -- 132,634 226 132,408 NA

Greece -- 48 -- 48 NA

Hungary -- 9,804 -- 9,804 NA

Iceland -- 37 -- 37 NA

Italy 51,123 29,607 7,409 73,322 NA

Netherlands -- 21,725 36 21,690 NA

Portugal 131 2,346 35 2,443 NA

Soviet Union3 599,499 -- 146,115 453,384 NA

Spain 4 14,453 -- 14,457 NA

Sweden -- 17,107 28 17,079 NA

Switzerland -- 8,695 -- 8,695 NA

United Kingdom -- 170,893 7,874 163,019 NA

Yugoslavia 5,416 8,727 5,217 8,926 NA

Total 713,644 657,896 199,240 1,172,300 1,172,300

North and Central America:

Canada 1,014,699 NA 969,372 45,327 NA

El Salvador -- 227 -- 227 NA

Guatemala -- 226 -- 226 NA

Jamaica -- 35 -- 35 NA

Mexico -- 13,421 -- 13,421 NA

United States 41,028 607,388 4,955 643,462 NA

Total 1,055,727 621,295 974,326 702,696 702,696
29

The leading consumers of the 1970s, the peak consumption years, were in Australia, Brazil, China, East and West 

Germany, France, India, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, 

Mexico, Poland, Soviet Union, Spain, Thailand, the United 

Kingdom, the United States, and Yugoslavia. About 75 countries were importing asbestos for manufacturing purposes in 

1975 (table 20; Virta, 2003, p. 40-41). By 2000, asbestos consumption had declined by more than 50 percent from that of 

1975. Manufacturing of asbestos products in many countries 

has ceased or has been reduced to extremely low levels. Many 

countries that were major consumers in the 1970s became 

minor participants in the world market (table 21). In 2003, 

the leading asbestos consuming nations were Brazil, China, 

India, Indonesia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Russia, Thailand, Ukraine, 

Uzbekistan, and Vietnam, based on exports and imports 

reported by the United Nations and world asbestos production 

data (United Nations, 2004; Virta, 2005; fig. 6, table 22).

Table 19. Asbestos production, trade, and consumption in 1960—Continued

[In metric tons. e estimated; NA, not available; --, zero. Information from Virta, 2003b, p. 36-37]

Region and country Production Imports Exports

Consumption

Apparent1 Estimated2

South America:

Bolivia 170 -- 170 -- NA

Brazil 13,237 13,670 -- 26,906 NA

Colombia -- 6,836 -- 6,836 NA

Peru -- 1,813 -- 1,813 NA

Venezuela 3,932 2,277 3,661 2,548 NA

Total 17,339 24,596 3,831 38,104 38,104

Grand total 2,212,825 1,486,118 1,520,263 2,178,681 2,212,826

1

Apparent consumption calculated as production plus imports minus exports, not adjusted to account for changes in Government and 

industry stocks. Negative apparent consumption indicates sales from stocks.

2

Estimated consumption excludes negative apparent consumption data and estimated additions to stockpiles for individual countries.

3

Production and exports include Russia and Kazakhstan.

Table 20. Asbestos production, trade, and consumption in 1975

[In metric tons. e estimated; NA, not available; --, zero. Information from Virta, 2003b, p. 40-41]

Region and country Production Imports Exports

Consumption

Apparent1 Estimated2

Africa:

Algeria -- 4,582 -- 4,582 NA

Congo (Kinshasa) -- 672 -- 672 NA

Egypt 479 5,477 -- 5,956 NA

Ghana -- 13,188 -- 13,188 NA

Kuwait -- 5,666 -- 5,666 NA

Kenya -- 743 -- 743 NA

Libya -- 1,335 -- 1,335 NA

Morocco -- 7,160 -- 7,160 NA

Mozambique -- 740 1,148 -4081 NA

Nigeria -- 29,024 -- 29,024 NA

Senegal -- 1,132 -- 1,132 NA

South Africa 354,710 28,560 368,000 15,270 NA

Swaziland 37,601 -- 41,219 -36,181 NA

Syria -- 3,391 -- 3,391 NA

Industry Structure
30 Mineral Commodity Profiles—Asbestos

Table 20. Asbestos production, trade, and consumption in 1975—Continued

[In metric tons. e estimated; NA, not available; --, zero. Information from Virta, 2003b, p. 40-41]

Region and country Production Imports Exports

Consumption

Apparent1 Estimated2

Africa—Continued:

Tunisia -- 1,619 -- 1,619 NA

Uganda -- 28 -- 28 NA

United Arab Emirates -- e2,000 -- e2,000 NA

Zambia -- 2,765 -- 2,765 NA

Zimbabwe 261,542 -- e260,000 1,542 NA

Total 654,332 108,082 670,367 92,047 96,073

Asia and the Middle East:

China 150,000 -- -- 150,000 NA

Hong Kong -- 907 705 202 NA

India 20,312 41,514 -- 61,826 NA

Indonesia -- 4,845 -- 4,845 NA

Iran -- 24,814 -- 24,814 NA

Iraq -- 1,482 -- 1,482 NA

Israel -- 856 -- 856 NA

Japan 4,612 253,097 2,158 255,551 NA

Korea, North -- 3,300 -- 3,300 NA

Korea, Republic of 4,345 56,960 -- 61,305 NA

Malaysia -- 19,932 -- 19,932 NA

Pakistan -- e7,000 -- e7,000 NA

Philippines -- 1,899 -- 1,899 NA

Saudi Arabia -- 10,405 -- 10,405 NA

Singapore -- 10,341 1,670 8,671 NA

Sri Lanka -- 789 -- 789 NA

Taiwan 1,737 13,363 -- 15,100 NA

Thailand -- 42,521 -- 42,521 NA

Turkey 15,496 16,357 -- 31,853 NA

Total 196,502 510,382 4,533 702,351 702,351

Europe:

Austria -- 34,343 183 34,160 NA

Belgium-Luxembourg -- 60,549 1,721 58,828 NA

Bulgaria -- 28,812 -- 28,812 NA

Canary Islands -- 288 -- 288 NA

Cyprus 31,602 -- 28,378 3,224 NA

Czechoslovakia -- 43,494 -- 43,494 NA

Denmark -- 24,388 112 24,276 NA

Finland 2,791 10,132 3,512 9,411 NA

France -- 138,637 2,050 136,587 NA

Germany, East -- 65,725 -- 65,725 NA
31

Table 20. Asbestos production, trade, and consumption in 1975—Continued

[In metric tons. e estimated; NA, not available; --, zero. Information from Virta, 2003b, p. 40-41]

Region and country Production Imports Exports

Consumption

Apparent1 Estimated2

Europe—Continued:

Germany, West -- 386,188 73,770 312,418 NA

Greece -- 13,306 -- 13,306 NA

Hungary -- 32,604 -- 32,604 NA

Iceland -- 7 -- 7 NA

Ireland -- 6,848 -- 6,848 NA

Italy 146,984 66,273 81,073 132,184 NA

Netherlands -- 35,852 189 35,663 NA

Norway -- 5,629 -- 5,629 NA

Poland -- 94,412 -- 94,412 NA

Portugal -- 5,778 -- 5,778 NA

Romania -- 41,299 -- 41,299 NA

Soviet Union3 1,900,000 -- 613,303 1,286,697 NA

Spain -- 94,114 -- 94,114 NA

Sweden -- 15,529 173 15,356 NA

Switzerland -- 17,262 82 17,180 NA

United Kingdom -- 139,185 1,698 137,487 NA

Yugoslavia 12,336 52,138 3,170 61,304 NA

Total 2,093,713 1,412,792 809,414 2,697,091 2,697,091

North and Central America:

Canada 1,055,667 5,166 1,085,610 -247,771 NA

Costa Rica -- 2,974 -- 2,974 NA

El Salvador -- 3,866 -- 3,866 NA

Guatemala -- 1,808 -- 1,808 NA

Jamaica -- 1,307 -- 1,307 NA

Mexico -- 60,395 -- 60,395 NA

Nicaragua -- 1,207 -- 1,207 NA

Panama -- 83 -- 83 NA

United States 89,497 488,567 33,064 545,000 NA

Total 1,145,164 565,373 1,118,674 591,863 616,640

Oceania:

Australia 47,922 49,794 24,524 73,192 NA

New Zealand -- 12,484 -- 12,484 NA

Total 47,922 62,278 24,524 85,676 85,676

South America:

Argentina 1,130 15,548 -- 16,678 NA

Bolivia -- e750 -- e750 NA

Brazil 73,978 29,800 -- 103,778 NA

Industry Structure
32 Mineral Commodity Profiles—Asbestos

Table 20. Asbestos production, trade, and consumption in 1975—Continued

[In metric tons. e estimated; NA, not available; --, zero. Information from Virta, 2003b, p. 40-41]

Region and country Production Imports Exports

Consumption

Apparent1 Estimated2

Europe—Continued:

Chile -- e2,000 -- e2,000 NA

Colombia -- e15,000 -- e15,000 NA

Ecuador -- e3,000 -- e3,000 NA

Peru -- e3,500 -- e3,500 NA

Uruguay -- 1,927 -- 1,927 NA

Venezuela -- 15,548 -- 15,548 NA

Total 75,108 87,073 -- 162,181 162,181

Grand total 4,212,741 2,745,980 2,627,512 4,331,209 4,360,012

1

Apparent consumption calculated as production plus imports minus exports, not adjusted to account for changes in 

Government and industry stocks. Negative apparent consumption indicates sales from stocks.

2

Estimated consumption excludes negative apparent consumption data and estimated additions to stockpiles for individual countries.

3

Production and exports include Russia and Kazakhstan.

Table 21. Asbestos production, trade, and consumption in 2000

[In metric tons. e, estimated; --, zero. Information from Virta, 2005; United Nations, 2004]

Country Production Imports Exports

Apparent

consumption1

Africa:

Algeria -- 7,611 -- 7,611

Angola -- 1,520 -- 1,520

Benin -- 52 -- 52

Burundi -- 200 -- 200

Congo (Kinshasa) -- 122 -- 122

Egypt -- 1,912 -- 1,912

Ghana -- 1,071 -- 1,071

Kenya -- 27 1 27

Malawi -- 15 -- 15

Mauritius 42 -- 42

Morocco -- 2,232 -- 2,232

Mozambique -- 128 -- 128

Namibia -- -- (2) (2)

Niger -- 40 -- 40

Nigeria -- 7,222 -- 7,222

Senegal -- 1,277 147 1,130

Sierra Leone -- 1 -- 1

South Africa 18,782 10,842 34,695 -50,711

Swaziland 12,690 -- 6,933 5,757

Tanzania -- 18 -- 18

Tunisia -- 2,200 144 2,200
33

Table 21. Asbestos production, trade, and consumption in 2000—Continued

[In metric tons. e, estimated; --, zero. Information from Virta, 2005; United Nations, 2004]

Country Production Imports Exports

Apparent

consumption1

Africa—Continued:

Zambia -- 871 -- 871

Zimbabwe 152,000 -- 64,583 27,417

Total 183,472 37,404 106,502 54,518

Asia and the Middle East:

Bangladesh -- 1,445 -- 1,445

China 315,000 79,129 11,814 382,315

Hong Kong -- 1,135 -- 1,135

India 21,000 124,433 403 145,030

Indonesia -- 42,877 -- 42,877

Iran 2,000 38,707 -- 40,707

Israel -- 20 -- 20

Japan -- 85,440 -- 85,440

Korea, Republic of -- 30,135 12 -121

Lebanon -- 975 -- 975

Malaysia -- 17,711 -- 17,711

Maldives -- 2 -- 2

Mongolia -- 690 -- 690

Myanmar -- 100 -- 100

Nepal -- (2) -- (2)

North Korea -- 848 -- 848

Oman -- 1 180 1

Pakistan -- 1,589 -- 1,589

Philippines -- 2,631 -- 2,631

Saudi Arabia -- 68 9,733 68

Singapore -- 3,014 24 2,990

Sri Lanka -- 12,640 -- 12,640

Syria -- 2,010 -- 2,010

Thailand -- 109,600 -- 109,600

Togo -- 32 -- 32

Tokelau -- 212 -- 212

Turkey -- 27,569 -- 27,569

United Arab Emirate -- 10,221 1 10,221

Vietnam -- 44,150 -- 44,150

Yemen -- 172 -- 172

Total 338,000 637,555 22,165 933,168

Europe:

Austria -- -- 5 -5

Azerbaijan -- 7,149 -- 7,149

Belarus -- -- 65 65

Industry Structure
34 Mineral Commodity Profiles—Asbestos

Table 21. Asbestos production, trade, and consumption in 2000—Continued

[In metric tons. e, estimated; --, zero. Information from Virta, 2005; United Nations, 2004]

Country Production Imports Exports

Apparent

consumption1

Europe—Continued:

Belgium-Luxembourg -- -- (2) (2)

Bosnia-Herzegovina -- 21 -- 21

Bulgaria 350 391 324 417

Croatia -- 3,655 -- 3,655

Cyprus -- 324 (2) 324

Czech Republic -- 1,076 -- 1,076

Estonia -- 180 (2) 180

France -- 20 46 -26

Georgia -- 5 -- 5

Germany -- 212 -- 212

Greece -- 90 8,946 -88,561

Hungary -- 3,456 -- 3,456

Ireland -- -- (2) (2)

Kazakhstan 233,200 1,252 162,716 71,737

Kyrgyzstan -- 16,486 -- 16,486

Latvia -- 1,124 -- 1,124

Lithuania -- 1,305 643 643

Macadonia -- 48 -- 48

Moldova -- 1,679 -- 1,679

Netherlands -- 3 -- 3

Norway -- 12 -- 12

Poland 117 -- 117

Portugal -- 3,437 36 3,401

Romania -- 10,658 -- 10,658

Russia 750,000 31,656 332,417 449,239

Serbia-Montenegro 563 43 69 537

Slovakia -- 1,201 -- 1,201

Slovenia -- 754 -- 754

Spain -- 13,060 126 13,060

Sweden -- -- 12 -121

Switzerland -- -- (2) (2)

Tajikistan -- 450 -- 450

Turkmenistan -- 979 (2) 979

Ukraine -- 80,942 -- 80,942

United Kingdom -- 270 2 268

Uzbekistan -- 43,374 -- 43,374

Total 984,113 225,426 505,400 704,375

Central and North America:

Bahamas -- 515 -- 515
35

Employment

Employment in asbestos mines and mills is difficult to 

assess in the world setting. The United States no longer mines 

asbestos, eliminating employment in that sector. Around 

1976, employment in U.S. mines and mills was 265 miners 

and millers. Production in that year was about 104,000 t or 

about 390 metric tons per employee for mainly open pit operations (Clifton, 1980a). If productivity worldwide averaged 

300 metric tons per year (t/yr) per person, world employment 

would have been about 7,200 persons in 2003, assuming only 

open pit mining and equivalent efficiencies in mining worldwide for a world production of 2.15 Mt. Given that there are 

many smaller underground mines still operating and efficiency 

probably is not as great in several countries, employment of 

8,000 to 10,000 persons probably is a more accurate estimate 

of the number of miners and millers employed worldwide.

Table 21. Asbestos production, trade, and consumption in 2000—Continued

[In metric tons. e, estimated; --, zero. Information from Virta, 2005; United Nations, 2004]

Country Production Imports Exports

Apparent

consumption1

Central and North America—

Continued:

Canada 309,719 22 314,706 -49,651

Costa Rica -- 109 -- 109

Cuba -- 5,512 -- 5,512

Dominican Republic -- 200 -- 200

El Salvador -- 1,460 2 1,460

Guatemala -- 20 2 18

Haiti -- 17 -- 17

Honduras -- 2,437 -- 2,437

Mexico -- 36,945 1 36,945

Panama -- 1,280 -- 1,280

Trinidad -- -- (2) (2)

United States 5,260 14,849 18,975 -41,261

Total 314,979 62,851 333,686 38,886

Oceania: Australia -- 1,424 -- 1,424

South America:

Argentina 254 1,843 26 2,097

Bolivia -- 513 -- 513

Brazil 209,332 26,362 63,134 172,560

Chile 1,969 158 1,811

Colombia 5,000 12,994 2 17,994

Ecuador -- 4,595 -- 4,595

Paraguay -- 396 -- 396

Peru -- 1,275 (2) 1,275

Uruguay -- 778 -- 778

Venezuela -- 2,943 -- 2,943

Total 214,586 53,668 63,320 204,963

Unknown trade destinations -- 14,630 -- 14,630

Grand total 2,035,150 1,031,535 1,031,075 1,950,539

1

Apparent consumption calculated as production plus imports minus exports, not adjusted to account for 

changes in Government and industry stocks. Negative value indicates sales from stocks.

2

Less than 1⁄2 unit.

Industry Structure
36 Mineral Commodity Profiles—Asbestos

About 18 plants in the United States employed 418 

workers to manufacture asbestos products in 1997, when U.S. 

apparent consumption was 21,000 t. This compares with 123 

plants employing 13,900 workers in 1977, when U.S. apparent 

consumption was about 610,000 t (U.S. Census Bureau, 1999, 

p. 7; U.S. Department of Commerce, 1995, p. 32E-7; fig. 3). 

In 2004, probably less than 10 U.S. establishments manufactured asbestos products and employed less than 100 workers. This is roughly equivalent to about 40 to 60 t of apparent 

consumption per employee. Even using an estimate of 200 t 

of apparent consumption per employee based on the relative 

simplicity of producing A/C products, global employment 

would be between 10,000 to 13,000 persons.

Ironically, there probably is greater employment in many 

countries in the asbestos abatement field than in asbestos mining, milling, and manufacturing. The asbestos abatement sector expanded rapidly in the 1980s when schools, businesses, 

churches, and similar entities sought to remove asbestos-containing materials from their buildings. Asbestos abatement 

slowed as it was realized that containment and maintenance 

often offered a better and less expensive solution than removal. 

In 2002, there were about 2,280 workers in the United States 

involved with asbestos and lead abatement (Bureau of Labor 

Statistics, 2004). Currently, most asbestos abatement jobs are 

associated with building renovations and demolitions.

Market-Size and Reach

The size of the asbestos market has changed dramatically 

since the 1970s, when asbestos consumption peaked (figs. 2, 3). 

Markets for asbestos fiber are estimated to be about 2.15 Mt in 

2003, assuming no waste from production and that all reported 

production was fiber and did not include some tailings used for 

crushed stone applications. This is an increase from an estimated 

1.95 Mt in 2000, but less than half the peak consumption years of 

the 1970s. The number of countries importing asbestos does not 

appear to have changed significantly since the mid 1970s but tonnages imported have decreased. In 1975, there were many small 

countries importing 1,000 to 20,000 t/yr of asbestos. In 2003, 

estimated imports for many of these same countries declined to 

100 to 3,000 t (United Nations, 2004; Virta, 2003, p. 40-41). The 

largest change in consumption between 1975 and 2003 was in 

the European Union and the United States, once the two leading 

consuming regions of the globe. Consumption in these two areas 

has declined to almost insignificant levels (fig. 6; tables 20-23).

Table 22. Asbestos production, trade, and consumption in 2003

[In metric tons. --, zero. Information from Virta, 2005; United Nations, 2004]

Region and country Production Imports Exports Apparent consumption1

Africa:

Algeria -- 10,756 -- 10,756

Angola -- 1,388 -- 1,388

Benin -- 99 -- 99

Egypt -- 2,382 -- 2,382

Ghana -- 65 -- 65

Kenya -- 96 (2) 96

Malawi -- 2 -- 2

Morocco -- 1,478 -- 1,478

Mozambique -- 372 372

Namibia -- (2) (2)

Nigeria -- 565 565

Senegal -- 1,628 377 1,251

South Africa 6,218 3,568 4,192 5,593

Sudan -- 91 -- 91

Tanzania -- 6 -- 6

Togo -- 259 -- 259

Tunisia -- 1,020 -- 1,020

Uganda -- (2) -- (2)

Zambia -- 408 -- 408

Zimbabwe 147,000 1 73,854 73,147

Total 153,218 24,184 78,423 98,980
37

Table 22. Asbestos production, trade, and consumption in 2003—Continued

[In metric tons. --, zero. Information from Virta, 2005; United Nations, 2004]

Region and country Production Imports Exports Apparent consumption1

Asia and the Middle East:

Bahrain -- (2) -- (2)

Bangladesh -- 2,802 -- 2,802

China 350,000 141,185 3,472 487,714

Fiji -- 1 -- 1

Guinea -- 4 -- 4

Hong Kong -- 2 -- 2

India 19,000 165,424 2,548 181,876

Indonesia -- 30,709 22 30,709

Iran -- 77,936 12 77,936

Iraq -- 12 -- 12

Japan -- 21,245 22 21,245

Korea, North -- 1,265 -- 1,265

Korea, Republic of -- 23,157 62 23,157

Malaysia -- 11,972 -- 11,972

Mongolia -- 310 -- 310

Myanmar -- 2 -- 2

Nepal -- 25 -- 25

Pakistan -- 2,810 -- 2,810

Philippines -- 2,445 -- 2,445

Saudi Arabia -- 7 -- 7

Singapore -- 269 (2) 268

Sri Lanka -- 6,106 -- 6,106

Syria -- 1,209 -- 1,209

Thailand -- 112,880 127 112,753

Turkey -- 12,922 42 12,880

United Arab Emirates -- 10,241 -- 10,241

Vietnam -- 39,832 -- 39,832

Total 369,000 664,774 6,307 1,027,585

Europe:

Austria -- (2) -- (2)

Azerbaijan -- 10,181 -- 10,181

Belarus -- -- 61 -611

Belgium and Luxembourg -- 111 -- 111

Bosnia and Herzegovina -- -- 1 -11

Bulgaria -- 108 (2) 108

Croatia -- 2,313 -- 2,313

Czech Republic -- 1,610 (2) 1,610

Denmark -- -- 3 -31

Estonia -- -- (2) (2)

Market Size and Reach
38 Mineral Commodity Profiles—Asbestos

Table 22. Asbestos production, trade, and consumption in 2003—Continued

[In metric tons. --, zero. Information from Virta, 2005; United Nations, 2004]

Region and country Production Imports Exports Apparent consumption1

Europe—Continued:

France -- -- 5 -5

Georgia -- (2) -- (2)

Germany -- 102 -- 102

Greece -- -- 13 -131

Hungary -- 329 -- 329

Iceland -- 3 -- 3

Ireland -- -- (2) (2)

Kazakhstan 354,500 3,514 183,949 174,065

Kyrgyzstan -- 23,652 -- 23,652

Lithuania -- -- (2) (2)

Macedonia -- 50 -- 50

Moldova -- 956 7 956

Netherlands -- 2 -- 2

Norway -- 22 -- 22

Portugal -- 1,590 (2) 1,590

Romania -- 11,400 113 11,286

Russia 878,000 1,050 450,031 429,020

Slovakia -- 7,400 -- 7,400

Spain -- 173 -- 173

Switzerland -- -- (2) (2)

Tajikistan -- 490 -- 490

Turkmenistan -- 1,849 -- 1,849

Ukraine -- 156,393 -- 156,393

United Kingdom -- 23 (2) 22

Uzbekistan -- 42,362 -- 42,362

Total 1,232,500 265,681 634,182 864,006

Central and North America:

Canada 194,350 209 194,774 -2,151

Cuba -- 9,896 -- 9,896

Dominican Republic -- 75 -- 75

El Salvador -- 2,600 -- 2,600

Guatemala -- -- (2) (2)

Mexico -- 19,892 20 19,872

Panama -- 1,080 -- 1,080

United States -- 4,557 3,548 1,009

Total 194,350 38,310 198,342 34,318

Oceania: Australia -- 20 1 19

South America:

Argentina 166 17 -- 183
39

Table 22. Asbestos production, trade, and consumption in 2003—Continued

[In metric tons. --, zero. Information from Virta, 2005; United Nations, 2004]

Region and country Production Imports Exports Apparent consumption1

Central and North America—Continued:

Bolivia -- 1,159 -- 1,159

Brazil 194,350 12,525 144,343 62,532

Colombia 5,000 8,118 -- 13,118

Ecuador -- 1,458 -- 1,458

Peru -- 659 (2) 659

Uruguay -- (2) -- (2)

Venezuela -- 1,464 -- 1,464

Total 199,516 25,401 144,343 80,574

Unknown trade destinations -- 43,609 -- 43,609

Grand total 2,148,584 1,061,980 1,061,598 2,149,091

1

Apparent consumption calculated as production plus imports minus exports, not adjusted to account for changes in Government and industry stocks. Negative value indicates sales from stocks.

2

Less than 1⁄2 unit.

Table 23. Changes in estimated apparent consumption, by decade1,2

[In metric tons. NA, data not available; XX, not applicable. Information from Virta, 2003b, p. 28]

1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

World consumption 205,000 389,000 540,000 1,283,000 2,213,000 3,544,000 4,836,000 3,980,000 1,980,000

Africa NA 11,200 -13,300 8,180 19,000 61,700 -16,500 -10,800 -8,540

Major changes:

Algeria XX XX +1,550 +4,640 XX XX XX –9,770

Congo (Kinsasha) XX XX +1,340 XX XX XX XX XX

Egypt XX XX XX +5,950 XX XX XX XX

Nigeria XX XX XX +34,400 XX -12,000 XX

South Africa +13,800 -27,000 XX -21,300 +48,400 -98,000 +78,800 XX

Swaziland XX XX XX XX XX XX XX +10,900

Zambia XX XX XX XX +15,600 -15,600 XX XX

Asia and the Middle 

East

NA 4,770 26,700 -12,900 197,000 447,000 394,000 -88,300 -11,600

Major changes:

China XX XX XX +81,200 +91,400 +68,300 -55,300 +197,000

India XX +5,520 +5,610 +12,500 +26,100 +47,100 XX XX

Indonesia XX XX XX XX XX XX +57,900 XX

Iran XX XX XX XX XX XX +48,900 -31,500

Japan +6,230 +15,500 -14,400 80,200 +227,000 +79,400 -106,000 -207,000

Korea, Republic of XX +5,590 XX XX +36,000 XX XX -46,000

Saudi Arabia XX XX XX XX XX +52,200 -50,600 XX

Market Size and Reach
40 Mineral Commodity Profiles—Asbestos

Prices

Prices for asbestos are negotiated between suppliers or 

agents and buyers. Prices are not set by large international 

markets, as is done for metals. In the United States, prices of 

domestically produced asbestos increased gradually through 

about 1970. Slight declines in actual prices were observed in 

the early 1930s, immediately after World War II, and in the 

1960s. Prices rose significantly in the 1970s and remained relatively stable afterwards. The inflationary period of the 1970s 

and rising liability insurance costs are likely contributors to the 

large increase in the unit value of domestic asbestos observed 

after 1973, counter to declining U.S. markets. Except for a 

slight decline in the 1940s, the value of U.S. asbestos imports 

increased gradually through the 1970s. From about 1972, unit 

values increased significantly through the early 1980s after 

which they declined (fig. 11). Depressed markets and high 

Table 23. Changes in estimated apparent consumption, by decade—Continued1,2

[In metric tons. NA, data not available; XX, not applicable. Information from Virta, 2003b, p. 28]

1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Europe NA 86,800 102,000 277,000 665,000 627,000 1,010,000 -222,000 -1,880,000

Major changes:

Belgium and Luxemburg+18,800 -19,100 +21,500 XX XX XX XX XX

Cyprus +6,730 XX XX XX XX XX XX XX

France XX +19,100 +19,800 XX +69,000 XX XX -63,600

Germany +7,060 XX +80,000 +52,400 XX +191,000 -351,000 XX

Italy XX XX XX +48,500 +59,000 +48,200 -118,000 -62,400

Poland XX XX XX XX +49,100 XX XX -65,500

Soviet Union, 

former

+36,700 +32,800 +65,300 +317,000 +227,000 +789,000 +681,000 -1,630,000

Spain +5,480 XX XX XX +62,300 XX XX XX

United Kingdom XX +71,800 XX +55,400 XX -56,400 -77,800 XX

Yugoslavia3 XX XX XX XX XX XX XX -34,900

North and Central 

America

NA 82,500 18,900 454,000 -4,020 106,000 -255,000 -403,000 -112,000

Major changes:

Canada +61,300 -26,300 XX XX +50,000 XX XX -81,000

Cuba XX XX XX XX XX XX XX +4,010

Mexico XX XX XX XX +27,000 +39,000 -39,700 XX

United States +40,700 +44,600 +423,000 -16,700 XX -309,000 -326,300 -36,600

Oceania NA -758 15,500 6,450 26,600 28,900 -6,130 -69,700 -282

Major changes:

Australia +14,700 +3,360 +25,700 +25,100 XX -64,800 XX

South America NA -823 739 10,600 26,400 61,100 168,000 -61,200 1,040

Major changes:

Argentina XX XX XX XX +21,100 XX -14,500 XX

Brazil XX XX 8,720 +17,600 XX +157,000 -32,000 +9,320

Chile XX XX XX XX XX XX XX -5,940 

Total world consumption changeNA 184,000 151,000 743,000 930,000 1,330,000 1,290,000 -855,000 -2,000,000

1

Data are rounded to no more than three significant digits; may not add to totals shown.

2

Part of the change in consumption in such major asbestos-producing countries as Canada, the former Soviet Union, and South Africa includes asbestos 

added to or removed from company stocks in addition to that used in manufacturing.

3

Includes Bosnia, Croatia, Herzegovina, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Slovenia. 
41

producer inventories in the mid-1980s resulted in negotiated 

asbestos prices being lower than listed prices (Kendall, 1980). 

Prices worldwide have increased slightly in recent years as a 

closer balance between supply and demand has been reached; 

however, in the mid-1980s and 2000, Asian market declines 

depressed prices slightly. Mine closures with capacity reductions have helped balance supply and demand and stabilize 

prices recently.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1932 1942 1952 1962 1972 1982 1992 2002

YEAR

DOLLARS PER METRIC TON

Domestic production value

Import value

Unit values concealed

Figure 11. Average unit values of asbestos produced in and imported into the United States from 1932 to 2003. Data from U.S. Bureau of 

Mines, 1934-1996; U.S. Geological Survey, 1997-2005.

Prices for Canadian chrysotile in 2002 were $144 to $300 

per metric ton for group 7; $293 to $420 per ton for group 6; 

$472 to $655 per ton for group 5; $710 to $995 per ton for 

group 4; and $1,030 to $1,244 per ton for group 3. Prices for 

South African chrysotile were $200 to $290 per ton for group 

7, $300 to $350 per ton for group 6, and $360 to $440 per ton 

for group 5 (Industrial Minerals, 2002).

Supply and Demand

Components of Supply

Since the mid-1990s, the United States has been almost 

100 percent dependent on imports (fig. 12). The bulk of the 

imports is from Canada, which supplied about 97 percent of 

asbestos imported into the United States through 2003. Other 

sources of asbestos are Brazil, South Africa, and Zimbabwe. 

All the asbestos imported into the United States is chrysotile. On a more global scale, Canada, Russia, and Zimbabwe are the leading suppliers of asbestos to world markets 

(Virta, 2005; fig. 1; table 2). The largest markets are in Asia, 

Kazakhstan, the Middle East, Russia, and the Ukraine. Brazil, 

China, and Kazakhstan are major producers of asbestos, but 

the bulk of their production is used within country (United 

Nations, 2004; Virta, 2003, p. 16, 58-59; table 21).

Currently, supply is balanced with world demands for 

asbestos fiber, although capacity is in excess of world needs. 

Demand is likely to decline because of threats of additional 

bans on asbestos worldwide and continued public opposition 

to its use. With six major producing countries of asbestos, 

shortages in supply in most fiber products probably is not 

likely in the near future. One supply concern is with the supply of specialty fiber products. This problem already presented itself when the Jeffrey Mine in Thetford, Quebec was 

closed in 2002. The mine and mill were reopened briefly to 

provide several years supply of a specialty fiber product to the 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration in the United 

States. The fiber was required for booster rocket components 

used for the U.S. space shuttle program (Perron, 2003).

Supply and Demand
42 Mineral Commodity Profiles—Asbestos

International Trade

Trade of asbestos has shifted considerably throughout the 

20th century. The United States was the leading consumer of 

asbestos worldwide until about 1950, consuming 37 to 99 percent of the world production annually between 1900 and 1950. 

It was the leading importer of asbestos for much of the 20th 

century. The major sources of asbestos for the United States 

were Canada, South Africa, and Zimbabwe.

Canada, the leading producer country through much of 

the 20th century, supplied most of the asbestos (all of which 

was chrysotile) used in U.S. markets. Canada eventually 

became a major supplier of chrysotile to Asia, Europe, and 

South America. With the downturn in asbestos use in Europe 

and the United States, Canada’s export focus in 2003 was 

on Southeast Asian countries (India, Indonesia, Japan, and 

Malaysia) and Mexico.

Kazakhstan and Russia (combined) became major exporters of asbestos by the 1940s, supplying chrysotile to Eastern 

and Western Europe for decades, with smaller amounts being 

shipped to Asian countries. With the decline in asbestos usage 

in Western Europe since the late 1990s and significant declines 

even in the former Soviet bloc countries in Eastern Europe, 

export markets for Russia have shifted more towards Asia and 

the Middle East. China, India, Thailand, and Ukraine were 

the major markets for exported Russian fiber in 2003. Major 

markets in 2003 for asbestos exported by Kazakhstan were 

China, India, Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan (United 

Nations, 2004).

South Africa was a major producer and supplier of asbestos (with more than 50 percent of production and sales being 

amosite and crocidolite) to the world. Before 1950, the United 

����������������

�����������

�������

�����

������

���������

������

���������

�����

���������

����������

���������

������

���������

��������

���������

�����

��������

�������������

���������

������

�������������

��������

�����

�����

�����������

�������

�����������

�������

�������

�������

Figure 12. U.S. supply and demand relationship for asbestos in 2003. Only chrysotile was imported and used in the United States in 

2003. e, estimated; t, metric tons. Data from Virta, 2004b.

Kingdom and the United States imported about 50 percent 

of South Africa’s exports. Other important markets included 

Asia, the Middle East, and Europe. By the 1970s, South African export markets had shifted and Japan became the major 

importing country. In 2003, Asian markets were the leading 

destination for asbestos exports from South Africa.

Zimbabwe also was a major world supplier of chrysotile. 

Most of its exports through 1950 were to the United Kingdom, 

at which time the United States started importing more from 

South Africa. Other export markets included Asia, Europe, 

and Latin America. The bulk of exports from Zimbabwe was 

shipped to Brazil, India, Iran, Japan, Slovakia, and Thailand in 

2003 (United Nations, 2004).

During the 1970s and 1980s, most of Brazil’s output was 

used within country, but its markets slowly broadened. Brazil 

exported small amounts of asbestos worldwide but focused 

on such countries as China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Iran, 

Japan, Malaysia, and Mexico in 2003.

Cyprus, Greece, Italy, and Swaziland once exported 

lesser amounts of asbestos to Africa, Asia, and Europe, but 

production and shipments from these countries have ceased.

China, while becoming a major producer of asbestos, has 

traditionally used most of its output within country. China has 

relatively small tonnages of exports relative to production.

In general, the downturn in the asbestos industries of 

Europe and the United States after 1990 has caused a shift in 

export markets to Asia (China, India, Indonesia, Japan, the 

Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Thailand, and Turkey), Iran, 

Mexico, and Ukraine. In 2003, China, India, Iran, Thailand, 

and Ukraine appear to be the leading asbestos consumers, 

dependent on imports for much of their manufacturing needs 

(United Nations, 2004; fig. 13).
43

Strategic Considerations

Asbestos was considered to be essential for strategic military applications during wartime. These applications ranged 

from use in brakes, clutches, and gaskets on motor vehicles 

and generators to electrical insulation on aircraft and ships to 

plate separators in batteries for military and, much later, missile and space applications. Because of these uses, exports of 

U.S. asbestos were restricted during World War II. The same 

restrictions were enforced during the Korean conflict (Clifton, 1985). Since the 1980s, military needs for asbestos have 

declined as substitutes have become increasingly incorporated into commercial products and alternative products have 

become available. By 2001, the entire U.S. chrysotile stockpile had been sold, and amosite and crocidolite were removed 

from the stockpile (Virta, 2002a). Nearly all strategic applications for asbestos are now satisfied by asbestos substitutes or 

alternative products.

Sustainability

In the United States, Western Europe, Australia, and 

many countries in South America, asbestos consumption 

has declined to insignificant levels or even ceased because 

of liability issues and public opposition to its use. The only 

countries that have maintained significant levels of consumption are China, India, Iran, Kazakhstan, Russia, Thailand, and 

Ukraine. In these and several lesser consuming countries, use 

of asbestos is still accepted, and liability has not yet become 

a major issue with manufacturers. China, Kazakhstan, and 

Russia produce sufficient asbestos to meet their own needs 

with the exception of a few specialty imports as well as the 

needs of other countries, so asbestos supply is not a major 

issue. In Thailand, manufacturing a various products for 

world needs has resulted in a fairly high level of use of 

asbestos, an estimated 113,000 t in 2003. Although Thailand 

is not a producer of asbestos, adequate and reliable supplies 

are available. Manufacturing demands in India have resulted 

in increased demand for asbestos in recent years. In 2000, 

asbestos consumption was estimated to be 145,000 t. In 2003, 

consumption was estimated to be about 182,000 t, an increase 

of 26% in only 3 years. Being a larger consumer than producer, India has depended on imports to supply its needs. The 

increased demands for asbestos in India and Thailand have not 

resulted in any shortages on the world market. For Canada, 

global markets for asbestos have declined, so in conjunction, 

the number of Canadian producers also has declined. In general, sustainability is not a matter of resources and production 

capability but one of liability issues and social acceptance of 

asbestos products.

Figure 13. Asbestos export patterns in 2003 for annual shipments greater than 10,000 metric tons. Figures listed are in thousand metric tons.

�� �� ������� ���

�� �� �������

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

���

��

�� �� �������� ���

�� �� �������

��

������

������

������

��������

��

Sustainability
44 Mineral Commodity Profiles—Asbestos

Economic Factors

Production and Transportation

Costs for mining and milling asbestos take into consideration capital investments, deposit characteristics (that affect 

mine type), market prices, payroll, research, and transportation 

mode distances to markets, and utilities. Costs for exploration, 

acquisition of land or leases, mine and plant design, and building construction also are considered. In 1962, the cost from 

design to completion of an asbestos mill near Copperopolis, 

Calif., was about $10 million (Huttl, 1962). In 1958, Lake 

Asbestos of Quebec, Ltd., developed a mine and mill at Black 

Lake, Quebec. About $9.2 million was for construction of the 

mill alone. The total cost to explore, test, design the mine and 

mill, drain 55 billion gallons of water from Black Lake, and 

build the mine and mill required about $36 million (Grindrod, 

1959).

Open pit or block caving dominated in chrysotile mines. 

For the amphibole asbestos, deposits were such that mining 

was very labor intensive, and mining methods varied considerably; recovery rates, however, were very good. The costs 

to mine and mill all types of asbestos fiber, as determined in 

1982, ranged from $100 to more than $700 per ton. At the 

mine, most cost estimates were in the $100-to-$199-per-ton 

range. At the mill, cost estimates ranged from $100 to more 

than $700 per-ton. Most mill estimates were in the range of 

$100-to-$299-per-ton range (Anstett and Porter, 1985, p. 12). 

Average costs for mines in major market economy producing 

countries are presented in table 24. Transportation costs from 

mine to consuming nation vary considerably depending on the 

transportation available and the distance from the mill to the 

market. In some instances, fiber was transported more than 

1,500 km by truck. In other instances, it was necessary to use 

several transportation modes (truck, barge, and freighter) to 

reach distant markets. Estimated transportation costs as determined in 1982 are presented in table 25.

Table 24. Mining methods and operating costs, January 1982

[do, ditto. Am, amosite; C, combined methods; Ch, chrysotile; Cr, crocidolite; N, nonproducer; P, producer; PP, past producer; S, surface; U, 

underground. Information from Anstett and Porter , 1985, p. 12]

Property name and location Mining methodStatus1 TypeFiber 

grades

Fiber 

type

Recoverable fiber

Cost at mine 

(dollars)

Cost at mill 

(dollars)

United States:

Alaska: Slate Creek Open pit N S 4 Ch 100-199 200-299

Arizona: El Dorado Room and pillar PP U 3, 4, 7 Ch Greater than 

700

500 to 599

California:

Calaveras Open pit PP S 4, 5, 6 Ch 100-199 200-299

Christie do PP S 7 Ch Less than 199 100-199

Santa Rita do PP S 7 Ch Less than 199 Less than 199

Vermont: Lowell do PP S 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Ch 100-199 300-399

Australia: Woodsreef do PP S 4, 5, 6 Ch 500 to 599 Greater than 

700

Brazil: Cana Brava do P S 4, 5, 6 Ch Less than 199 Less than 199

Canada:

Abitibi Open stope N U 4, 5, 6, 7 Ch 300-399 200-299

Asbestos Hill Open pit; sublevel cave P C 4, 5, 7 Ch 300-399 200-299

Baie Verte Open pit P S 4, 5, 6 Ch 300-399 100-199

Bell Block cave P U 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Ch 100-199 100-199

Black Lake Open pit P S 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Ch 100-199 100-199

British Canadian do PP S 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Ch 100-199 100-199

Carey Canada do PP S 4, 5, 6, 7 Ch Less than 199 Less than 199

Cassiar Open pit; sublevel stope PP C 3, 4, 5, 6 Ch 100-199 100-199

Jeffrey Open pit; stope PP C 4, 5, 6, 7 Ch 100-199 100-199

King-Beaver Open pit; block cave P C 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Ch 100-199 100-199
45

Energy Requirements

Energy required by the U.S. asbestos mining industry in 

1973 averaged an equivalent to 10.6 million British thermal 

units (MBtu) per metric ton of cleaned and graded chrysotile product. The survey covered all producers in Arizona, 

California, North Carolina, and Vermont and included estimates of energy content for various fuels used in mining and 

milling. On a tonnage basis, energy used was equivalent to 

1,500 kilowatthours per ton (kWh/t) of usable fiber (table 26). 

Estimated costs for producing asbestos were $3.5 million or 

$25.86 per ton calculated in 1983 dollars. The ease of mining 

the Coalinga deposit kept the average U.S. energy requirements low (Clifton, 1985). In 1976, energy requirements at 

a large Canadian mine and mill were higher at 2,725 to 3,110 

kWh/t than those of the average U.S. producer requirements 

(Clifton, 1985; table 27).

A study of the energy content of three cladding materials was done in the United Kingdom in 1979 for the Asbestos 

Information Centre. The study started at the mines for the raw 

materials and ended at the building sites. All relevant and significant energy expenditures and credits were calculated. The 

study determined that 16.42 kilowatthours (kWh) of energy 

was required to manufacture a square meter of corrugated 

asbestos cement sheet, 68.92 kWh was required for a square 

meter of corrugated aluminum sheeting, and 123.5 kWh was 

Table 24. Mining methods and operating costs, January 1982—Continued

[do, ditto. Am, amosite; C, combined methods; Ch, chrysotile; Cr, crocidolite; N, nonproducer; P, producer; PP, past producer; S, surface; U, 

underground. Information from Anstett and Porter , 1985, p. 12]

Property name and location Mining methodStatus1 TypeFiber 

grades

Fiber 

type

Recoverable fiber

Cost at mine 

(dollars)

Cost at mill 

(dollars)

Canada—Continued:

Midlothian Open pit PP S 4, 5, 6, 7 Ch Less than 199 100-199

National do P S 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Ch Less than 199 100-199

Penhale Block cave; modified cave N U 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Ch 100-199 100-199

Roberge Lake Open pit N S 5, 6, 7 Ch 100-199 100-199

Colombia: Las Brisas do P S 4, 6 Ch 100-199 100-199

Cyprus: Amiandos do PP S 3, 4 Ch 100-199 100-199

Greece: Zidani do PP S 4, 5, 6 Ch Less than 199 100-199

Italy: Balangero do PP S 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Ch Less than 199 100-199

Mexico: Pegaso do N S 5, 6, 7 Ch Less than 199 100-199

South Africa:

Danielskuil Room and pillar; semishrinkage stope PP U 3, 4 Cr 300-399 300-399

Elcor Room and pillar PP U 3, 4 Cr 100-199 100-199

Emmarentia Room and pillar; semishrinkage stope PP U 3, 4 Cr 100-199 Less than 199

Klipfontein Cut and fill PP U 3, 4 Cr 100-199 100-199

Msauli Sublevel cave PP U 4, 5, 6, 7 Ch 100-199 100-199

Penge Breast stope PP U 3, 4 Am 100-199 100-199

Pomfret Room and pillar PP U 3, 4, 6 Cr 100-199 100-199

Riries do PP U 3, 4 Cr 200-299 200-299

Senekal Sublevel stope PP U 5, 6, 7 Ch 100-199 100-199

Wandrag Room and pillar PP U 3, 4 Cr 100-199 Less than 199

Whitebank do PP U 3, 4 Cr 100-199 200-299

Swaziland: Havelock Sublevel cave; shrinkage stope PP U 4, 5 Ch 200-299 100-199

Zimbabwe:

Gath's Open pit; cave; shrinkage stope P C 4, 5 Ch 300-399 100-199

King Panel retreat cave P U 4, 5 Ch 100-199 Less than 199

Shabanie Prebreak cave P U 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Ch 200-299 300-399

1

Updated in 2003.

Economic Factors
46 Mineral Commodity Profiles—Asbestos

Table 25. Estimated mill-to-market fiber transportation costs in January 1982

[In 1982 constant dollars per metric ton. NA, not available; -- zero. Information from Anstett and Porter, 1985, p. 15]

Cost to destination

North America1

Central and South America2 Europe3 Africa and Middle East4 Asia5

Australia NA 90 NA 120 80

Brazil NA 60 NA NA NA

Canada:

Eastern 50 80 120 130 210

Western 210 190 250 270 180

Cyprus NA NA 100 -- 80

Greece NA NA 80 80 130

Italy NA NA 50 NA NA

South Africa:

Northern Cape 130 180 160 100 150

Northern Transvaal 80 130 110 40 100

Eastern Transvaal6 80 130 120 50 100

Zimbabwe 100 150 140 70 130

1

Major consuming centers for Canadian asbestos are Montreal, New York, and Toronto; major consuming center for all other fiber is New York.

2

Major consuming centers are Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico.

3

Major consuming centers are Belgium, France, and West Germany.

4

Major consuming centers in the Mediterranean area are Egypt and Saudi Arabia; for South African deposits, figures presented reflect transportation 

to internal markets only.

5

Major consuming centers are Japan and the Republic of Korea.

6

Includes Swaziland.

Table 26. Energy used by the U.S. asbestos mining industry in 1985

[--, zero. Information from Clifton, 1985]

Source

Used in mining Used in milling Total used

Total

(thousand kilowatthour 

equivalent)

Heavy fuel oil, thousand gallons 852 1,345 2,197 96,358

Natural gas, million cubic feet -- 168 168 50,736

Electricity, thousand kilowatthours 2,641 44,974 47,615 47,615

Diesel oil, thousand gallons 412 133 545 22,147

Liquid petroleum gas, thousand gallons 14 168 182 6,987

Gasoline, thousand gallons 52 12 64 2,343

Total energy, thousand kilowatthours 59,192 166,994 226,186 226,186
47

required for a square meter of plastic coated corrugated sheet 

steel (Schatzberger, 1979).

Environmental, Health, and Safety 

Issues

Asbestos-related disease is one of the most widely 

studied subjects of modern epidemiology. Asbestos diseases 

include asbestosis, a lung fibrosis resulting from long-term, 

high-level exposures to airborne fibers; lung cancer, usually 

resulting, from long-term high-level exposures and often correlated with asbestosis; and mesothelioma, a rare form of cancer of the lining (mesothelium) of the thoracic and abdominal 

cavities (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 

2001, p. 17-22; Omenn and others, 1986).

Concerns over its health effect were first raised in the 

early 1900s in the United Kingdom, but it was not until the 

early 1960s that researchers established a positive correlation between worker exposure to asbestos fibers and respiratory cancer diseases (Selikoff, Churg, and Hammond, 1964; 

Murray, 1990). This triggered a significant research effort 

on the effects of fiber size, shape, durability or persistence 

in the lung, trace elements, and exposure duration and levels 

towards health (Churg and Wright, 1994; van Oss and others, 

1999; Rice and Heineman, 2003). It is generally agreed that 

the inhalation of long (length generally greater than or equal 

to 5 micrometers), thin, and durable fibers in high concentrations over a long period of time pose the greatest health risk. 

Shorter fibers penetrate deeper into the lung but longer fibers 

are more difficult to clear (Finkelstein and Dufresne, 1999; 

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Control, 2001, p. 6; 

Johnson and Mossman, 2001). Fiber solubility is suggested to 

be the second most critical factor. Chrysotile is more soluble 

than amphibole asbestos and is removed more rapidly from 

the lung, reducing its residence time in the lung. Duration of 

exposure to asbestos is important because long exposure periods increase lung burden; additionally, long and/or high exposure levels counteract the effects of fiber solubility. Different 

asbestos types also appear to activate phagocytic leukocytes at 

different levels, with crocidolite and some chrysotile samples 

being the most active (van Oss and others, 1999). Some 

research suggests that iron content may be an important factor 

in asbestos-induced toxicity (Agency for Toxic Substances and 

Disease Registry, 2001, p. 51).

While still debated, many health scientists believe that 

there is sufficient evidence to state that the genotoxic and 

carcinogenic potentials of all asbestos fiber types are not identical; in particular, mesothelial cancer may be most strongly 

associated with amphibole fibers (Gardner and Powell, 1986; 

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 2001, p. 

Table 27. Energy consumed in the production of one metric ton of cleaned and graded chrysotile asbestos1

[Btu, British thermal unit. Information from Clifton, 1985]

Stage and type of fuel Amount Thousand Btu equivalent

Mining:2

Electric 42 kilowatthours 550

Diesel fuel oil 11.12 gallons 1,852

Bunker 6C oil 1.46 gallons 270

Kerosene 0.04 gallon 8

Gasoline 0.51 gallon 77

Total 2,757

Primary crushing: Electric 7 kilowatthours 87

Secondary crushing 75 kilowatthours 983

Drying:

Electric 42 kilowatthours 550

No. 2 fuel oil 0.54 gallon 90

Bunker 6C oil 15.40 gallons 2,859

Propane 0.12 gallon 13

Total 3,512

Milling and grading: Electric 249 kilowatthours 3,269

Grand total 10,608

1

Mine-plant transportation not included.

2

Based on a large Quebec mine with 3-to-1 waste-to-ore ratio, 6 percent fiber per ton of ore, and 25 to 30 inches of mine precipitation 

per year.

Environmental, Health, and SAfety Issues
48 Mineral Commodity Profiles—Asbestos

6; Gibbs, 2001, p. 165; Wilson and Price, 2001; Bernstein, 

Chevalier, and Smith, 2003, p. 1387; Bernstein, Rogers, and 

Smith, 2003, p. 1247).

The issue of asbestos as a contaminant in other types 

of mined ore bodies also is a concern (Nolan, Langer, and 

Wilson, 1999; Hull, Abraham, and Case, 2002; Peipins and 

others, 2003). As a means of defining the types of ore bodies 

that may contain asbestos as a contaminant, two studies were 

recently conducted on talc and vermiculite deposits. In the 

study of U.S. talc deposits, talc formed through hydrothermal processes consistently lacked amphiboles as accessory 

minerals. In contrast, talc deposits formed through contact or 

regional metamorphism consistently contained amphiboles, 

locally as asbestiform varieties (Van Gosen and others, 2004, 

p. 920). In U.S. vermiculite deposits, preliminary studies suggest that fibrous amphiboles are most likely to be associated 

with zoned, alkalic/calcic, quartz-poor plutons, as with the 

vermiculite deposit once mined near Libby (Van Gosen and 

others, 2002).

More recently, natural occurrences of asbestos have been 

an issue in California. In the past 5 to 10 years, development 

has moved into areas of serpentinite outcrops. These outcrops 

contain veins of chrysotile and some tremolite asbestos. New 

residents are now concerned about the risk to themselves and 

their children. This has resulted in a massive effort to map 

potential asbestos-bearing rock outcrops and analyze the 

health risk that exposure to the chrysotile may pose (Churchill 

and Hill, 2000; Clinkenbeard, Churchill, and Lee, 2002, p. 1-

7; California Air Resources Board, 2004).

Disposal of asbestos products also has an environmental 

impact. More fibers may be released into the environment 

through improper removal and disposal than if the asbestos 

had remained in place (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

2004a).

Liability

The incidence of disease associated with exposure to 

high levels of airborne asbestos fibers has resulted in a large 

liability risk for past and current producers, manufacturers, 

and installers. Liability became a major issue for companies beginning in the late 1970s. In the United States and 

elsewhere, asbestos producers and manufacturers of asbestos 

products began facing an increasing number of large class 

action lawsuits filed on behalf of those suffering from asbestos-related diseases (Virta, 2002b, p. 15).

Legal expenses and the availability of insurance are major 

deterrents for companies to maintaining old asbestos markets, 

generating new ones, and even to remaining involved in the 

asbestos industry. Johns-Manville Corp. (J-M) was one of the 

first major companies to face litigation. J-M was the leading 

producer of asbestos among the market economy countries 

and the leading manufacturer of asbestos-containing products 

in the United States. In 1982, J-M filed a bankruptcy petition 

under chapter 11 of the Federal Bankruptcy Code to relieve 

the burden of 16,500 outstanding asbestos-related lawsuits. 

The outcome was the reorganization of J-M as Manville 

Corp. and the establishment of a trust fund through which 

J-M would handle claims. Although financed at $1.8 billion 

initially and eligible to receive 20 percent of Manville Corp. 

profits, the trust had to suspend operations several times owing 

to the overwhelming debt burden. By 2000, the trust faced 

nearly 500,000 claims and had paid out $2.2 billion. Other 

large companies (including Armstrong World Industries, Inc.; 

Eagle-Picher Industries Inc.; H.K. Porter Co.; W.R. Grace 

and Co.; and U.S. Gypsum Corp.) also have filed bankruptcy 

proceedings for debt relief from asbestos claims (Butler, 2002; 

White, 2002, p. 23-24). By 2002, companies had already paid 

an estimated $21.6 billion to settle asbetos claims. Estimates 

of costs during the next 20 years have varied from $3.4 billion 

to nearly $200 billion (Butler, 2002). It was hoped that trusts, 

such as that of J-M, would reduce the cost of litigation by 

eliminating the need for companies to contest each liability 

through the use of a fixed compensation for various asbestos 

diseases. In 1982, much of the expense of asbestos claims 

was owing to legal expenses. RAND Corp. estimated that 

the plaintiffs’ legal expenses accounted for 30 percent of the 

amount paid out in compensation and the defendants’ legal 

expenses composed 33 percent. It was estimated that only 37 

percent of expenditures were received by claimants as compensation after expenditures (White, 2002, p. 8).

Claimant strategies have also changed in recent years 

as more companies that used to mine asbestos or manufacture asbestos products have filed for bankruptcy protection. 

Claims are now being filed against companies with only an 

ancillary connection to asbestos in an effort to increase the 

monetary base through which claims are settled. Automobile 

manufacturers and repair shops that installed asbestos brakes 

and clutches, oil companies and manufacturing and warehousing facilities that used asbestos products (such as asbestos 

gaskets, insulations, and roofing on their property), and even 

corporations that purchased companies that were involved 

with asbestos (such as Halliburton Corp.) have now routinely 

been named in suits (White, 2002).

Because of the rash of bankruptcies, bills have been introduced in Congress that would establish a national trust, funded 

by the insurance industry and companies that mined, manufactured, and sold asbestos or asbestos products, to deal with 

the asbestos liability issue. The funding for the trust would 

be in excess of $100 billion and would establish criteria that 

claimants must meet to qualify for eligibility consideration 

under the trust. So far, several attempts to enact these bills in 

Congress have not met with success and debates over eligibility requirements and compensation levels continued (Virta, 

2004b, p. 8.1; 2005).
49

Tariffs and Taxes

Tariffs

No tariffs are levied on imported asbestos, and no special 

taxes are levied on the asbestos industry (U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 2004a).

Depletion Provisions

Producers are granted a depletion allowance of 22 percent 

on domestic production and 10 percent on foreign production 

(Internal Revenue Service, 2004).

Government Programs

Additional costs are incurred for environmental programs 

established by governments worldwide. The United States 

and other countries have enacted increasingly strict exposure 

regulations since the 1970s as concern increased over the 

health risks posed by low-level exposures to asbestos. More 

emphasis is being placed on environmental exposures than 

in the past. Current limits to asbestos exposure are 2.0 fibers 

per cubic centimeter (f/cm3) of air for mine sites for an 8-hour 

time weighted average and 0.1 f/cm3 in all other occupational 

sites for an 8-hour time weighted average. The Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) proposed the 

change to 0.1 f/cm3 1994 from 0.2 f/cm3 for sites other than 

mines. This proposed reduction was estimated to have a cost 

of compliance of $14.8 million per year for the general industry sector, $346.5 million per year for the construction sector, 

and $93,000 per year for the shipyard sector (Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration, p. 40964, 41050).

Handling producers, bag houses, and ventilation are 

used to control worker exposure to asbestos in the workplace. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also set 

standards for the release of fiber in water systems and the air. 

Criteria for removal and disposal of asbestos and asbestoscontaining materials also are in place under EPA and OSHA 

standards (Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 

2004; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2004b).

Some countries have opted for a broader approach and 

have adopted more severe regulations that ban or restrict 

asbestos imports and types of applications. Countries that 

either have banned (either a complete ban or a ban with 

exemptions) or are phasing out the use of asbestos or asbestos 

products by 2005, include Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Chile, 

Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, 

Norway, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, Switzerland, and 

the United Kingdom (Virta, 2002b, p. 15; International Ban 

Asbestos Secretariat, 2004). The European Union banned 

asbestos use by its members in most applications in 2005. 

In the United States in 2003, legislation was introduced into 

Congress to ban the use of asbestos, with some exceptions. 

Attempts by Congress to ban asbestos in the United States 

have not been successful.

Outlook

The asbestos industry will continue to face strong opposition to the use of asbestos. This opposition has had a significant impact in the form of approximately 50 percent of the 

1973 market being lost. The use of asbestos in most countries 

has declined during the past 20 years. In many countries that 

use low tonnages of asbestos, consumption has remained 

relatively unchanged. The trend of declining use is likely to 

continue in some countries because substitutes are becoming more widely available worldwide and health and liability 

issues are beginning to arise in countries previously asbestos 

had not been subject to scrutiny. The rates of decline probably 

will be less in China, Kazakhstan, Latin America, Russia, and 

Southeast Asia because of their historically strong dependence 

on asbestos products and their current economic and political 

situations favoring the continued use of asbestos. Use in India 

and Thailand may also continue at current levels for the next 

few years because those countries have become a source for 

asbestos product exports to the Southeast Asian community.

References Cited

Addison, W.E., Neal, G.H., and White, A.D., 1966, Amphiboles—Part IV—Surface properties of amosite and crocidolite: Journal of the Chemical Society, section A, p. 79-81.

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 2001, 

Toxicological profile for asbestos: Web site at 

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp61.html. (Accessed 

January 5, 2004).

Alleman, J.E., and Mossman, B.T., 1997, Asbestos revisited: 

Scientific American, v. 277, no. 1, July, p. 70-75.

Anonymous, 1928, Asbestos—Its sources, extraction, preparation, manufacture, and uses in industry and engineering: 

Berlin, Becker & Haag GmbH, 88 p.

Anonymous, 1953, Asbestos fact book: Willow Grove, Pa., 

Stover Publishing Co., 19 p.

Anstett, T.F., and Porter, K.E., 1985, Asbestos availability—

Market economy countries: U.S. Bureau of Mines Information Circular 9036, 21 p.

Asbestos Textile Institute and Quebec Asbestos Mining 

Association, 1975, Chrysotile asbestos test manual—1974: 

Quebec, Quebec Asbestos Mining Association, 150 p.

References Cited
50 Mineral Commodity Profiles—Asbestos

Aveston, J., 1969, The mechanical properties of asbestos: 

Journal of Material Science, v. 4, no. 3, p. 625-633.

Badollet, M.S., 1951, Asbestos—A mineral of unparalleled 

properties: Transactions of the Canadian Institute of Mining & Metallurgy, v. 54, p. 151-160.

Bates, R.L., 1969, Metamorphic minerals—Asbestos, in The 

geology of industrial minerals and rocks: New York, Dover 

Publications, p. 317-328.

Bernier, C.F., 1984, Mining and processing at Lac d’Amiante 

du Québec, Ltee.: Littleton, Colo., Society of Mining 

Engineers, American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and 

Petroleum Engineers, Inc. Preprint 84-27, 5 p.

Bernstein, D.M., Chevalier, Jörg, and Smith, Paul, 2003, 

Comparison of Calidria chrysotile asbestos to pure tremolite—Inhalation biopersistence and histopathology following short-term exposure: Inhalation Toxicology, v. 15, no. 

14, December, p. 1387-1419.

Bernstein, D.M., Rogers, Rick, and Smith, Paul, 2003, The 

biopersistence of Canadian chrysotile asbestos following 

inhalation: Inhalation Toxicology, v. 15, no. 13, November, 

p. 1247-1274.

Boettcher, A.L., 1966, The Rainy Creek igneous complex near 

Libby, Montana: University Park, Pa., The Pennsylvania 

State University PhD. dissertation, 155 p.

Bowles, Oliver, 1934, Asbestos: U.S. Bureau of Mines Information Circular 6790, June, 24 p.

Bowles, Oliver, 1935, Asbestos—General information: U.S. 

Bureau of Mines Information Circular 6817, 21 p.

Bowles, Oliver, 1946, Asbestos—The silk of the mineral kingdom: New York, Ruberoid Co., 39 p.

Bradfield, R.E.N., 1977, Asbestos: Surrey, United Kingdom, 

Atkins Research and Development, January, 101 p.

Buckingham, D.A. and Virta, R.L., 2002, Asbestos statistics: 

Web site at http://minerals.usgs.gov/pubs/of01-066/#data. 

(Accessed June 18, 2004).

Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2004, Hazardous materials removal 

workers: Web site at http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos256.htm. 

(Accessed October 12, 2004).

Butler, Richard, 2002, The cost of asbestos: Chemistry and 

Industry, no. 22, November 18, p. 10.

California Air Resources Board, 2004, Naturally occurring 

asbestos—General information: Web site at 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/asbestos/geninfo.htm. 

(Accessed November 9, 2004).

Campbell, W.J., Blake, R.L., Brown, L.L., Cather, E.E., and 

Sjoberg, J.J., 1977, Selected silicate minerals and their 

asbestiform varieties: U.S. Bureau of Mines Information 

Circular 8751, 55 p.

Canada NewsWire, 2000 (December 27), Cassiar mill damaged by fire: Web site at http://www.newswire.ca/releases/

December20000/27/c6332.htlm. (Accessed December 30, 

2000).

Cape Asbestos Fibres Ltd., [undated], Test methods for blue 

and amosite asbestos fibers: Southwick, United Kingdom, 

The Grange Press, 39 p.

Cassiar Mines and Metals Inc., 1999, Cassiar magnesium 

metal project joint venture with Aluminum of Korea 

Ltd.—Hyundai Group: Toronto, Cassiar Mines and Metals 

Inc. press release, July 7, 1 p.

Chowdhury, S.R., and Kitchener, J.A., 1975, The zeta-potentials of natural and synthetic chrysotiles: International 

Journal of Mineral Processing, v. 2, p. 277-285.

Churchill, R.K., and Hill, R.L., 2000, A general location guide 

for ultramafic rocks in California—Areas more likely to 

contain naturally occurring asbestos: California Department 

of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Open-File 

Report 2000-19. (Also available through the Internet at 

http://www.consrv.ca.gov).

Churg, Andrew, and Wright, J.L., 1994, Persistence of natural 

mineral fibers in human lungs—An overview, in Biopersistence of respirable synthetic fibers and materials: Environmental Health Perspectives, v. 102, supplement 5, October, 

p. 229-233.

Ciullo, P.A., 1996, Industrial minerals and their uses—A 

handbook and formulary: Westwood, N.J., Noyes Publications, 632 p.

Clarke, Gerry, 1982, Asbestos—A versatile mineral under 

siege: Industrial Minerals, no. 174, March, p. 19-37.

Clifton, R.A., 1976, Asbestos, in Minerals facts and problems: 

U.S. Bureau of Mines Bulletin 667, p. 107-121.

Clifton, R.A., 1979, Asbestos: U.S. Bureau of Mines Mineral 

Commodity Profiles, 19 p.

Clifton, R.A., 1980a, Asbestos: U.S. Bureau of Mines Mineral 

Commodity Summary, July, 1980, p. 14-15.

Clifton, R.A., 1980b, Asbestos, in Minerals facts and problems: U.S. Bureau of Mines Bulletin 671, p. 55-71.

Clifton, R.A., 1985, Asbestos, in Minerals facts and problems: 

U.S. Bureau of Mines Bulletin 675, p. 53-64.
51

Clinkenbeard, J.P., Chruchill, R.K., and Lee, Kiyoung, eds., 

2002, Guidelines for geologic investigations of naturally 

occurring asbestos in California: California Department of 

Conservation, California Geological Survey Special Publication 124, 70 p.

Conn, H.K., and Mann, E.L., 1971, Evaluation of asbestos 

deposits: New York, Society of Mining Engineers, Inc. 

Preprint 71-H-27, 9 p.

Conrad, S.G., Wilson, W.F., Allen, E.P., and Wright, T.J., 

1963, Anthophyllite asbestos in North Carolina: North 

Carolina Department of Conservation and Development, 

Division of Mineral Resources Bulletin 77, 61 p.

Cossette, M., and Delvaux, P., 1979, Technical evaluation of 

chrysotile asbestos ore bodies, in Ledoux, R.L., ed., Short 

course in mineralogical techniques of asbestos determination: Ottawa, Mineralogical Association of Canada, v. 4, 

May, p. 79-110.

Dean, A.W., and Mann, E.L., 1968, The evaluation of chrysotile asbestos deposits, ore reserve estimation and grade 

control, in Ore reserve estimation and grade control—A 

Canadian centennial conference: Canadian Institute of Mining & Metallurgy, v. 9, p. 281-286.

Dreyer, C.J.B., and Robinson, H.A., 1981, Occurrence and 

exploitation of amphibole asbestos in South Africa, in Riordon, P.H., ed., Geology of asbestos deposits: New York, 

Society of Mining Engineers Inc., p. 25-44.

Finkelstein, M.M., and Dufresne, Anne, 1999, Interferences 

on the kinetics of asbestos deposition and clearance among 

chrysotile miners and millers: American Journal of Industrial Medicine, v. 35, no. 4, April, p. 401-412.

Franco, M.A., Hutchison, J.L., Jefferson, D.A., and Thomas, 

J.R., 1977, Structural imperfections and morphology of 

crocidolite (blue asbestos): Nature, v. 266, no. 7, April, p. 

520-521.

Gardner, M.J., and Powell, C.A., 1986, Mortality of asbestos 

cement workers using almost exclusively chrysotile fibre: 

Journal of the Society of Occupational Medicine, v. 36, no. 

4, November, p. 124.

Gazette Montreal, 2002, Jeffrey Mine pulls plug: Gazette 

Montreal, October 10, p. B3.

Gibbs, Graham, 2001, Health effects associated with mining 

and milling chrysotile asbestos in Quebec and the role of 

tremolite, in Nolan, R.P., Langer, A.M., Ross, M., Wicks, 

F.J., and Martin, R.F., eds., The health effects of chrysotile 

asbestos: Ottawa, The Canadian Mineralogist Special Publication 5, p. 165-176.

Griffiths, Joyce, 1986, Asbestos—Rising in east but setting in 

west: Industrial Minerals, no. 223, April, p. 21-37.

Grindrod, John, 1959, Lake Asbestos opencast mine and mill: 

The Mining Journal, July 3, p. 6-8.

Gross, Paul, and Braun, D.C., 1984, Toxic and biomedical 

effect of fibers—Asbestos, talc, inorganic fibers, man-made 

vitreous fibers, and organic fibers: Park Ridge, N.J., Noyes 

Publications, 257 p.

Hahn-Weinheimer, P., and Hirner, A., 1975, Influence of 

hydrothermal treatment on physical and chemical properties of chrysotile asbestos: Journal and Proceedings of the 

Royal Society of New South Wales, v. 110, p. 99-110.

Hall, A.L., 1930, Asbestos in the Union of South Africa: Geological Survey of South Africa, Memoir 12, 324 p.

Harrison, P.T.C., Levy, L.S., Patrick, Graham, Pigott, G.H., 

and Smith, L.L., 1999, Comparative hazards of chrysotile 

asbestos and its substitutes—A European perspective: Environmental Health Perspectives, v. 107, no. 8, August, 

p. 607-611.

Heinzl, Mark, 1999, An old mine’s rubbish revives a town 

called Asbestos: The Wall Street Journal, July 22, 

p. B1, B10.

Hodgson, A.A., 1979, Chemistry and physics of asbestos, in

Michaels, L., and Chissick, S.S., eds., Asbestos—Properties, applications and hazards: New York, John Wiley and 

Sons, Inc., p. 67-114.

Hodgson, A.A., 1985, Alternatives to asbestos and asbestos 

products: Crowthorne, United Kindgom, Anjalena Publications Ltd., 230 p.

Hodgson, A.A., 1986, Scientific advances in asbestos, 1967 to 

1985: Crowthorne, United Kingdom, Anjalena Publications 

Ltd., 186 p.

Hodgson, A.A., 1989, The alternative raw materials, in Hodgson, A.A., ed., Alternatives to asbestos—The pros and cons: 

New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 195 p.

Howling, G.E., 1937, Asbestos: London, Imperial Institute, 

88 p.

Hull, M.J., Abraham, J.L., and Case, B.W., 2002, Mesothelioma among workers in asbestiform fiber-bearing talc mines 

in New York State: Annals of Occupational Hygiene, v. 46, 

supplement 1, January, p. 132-135.

Huttl, John, 1962, Jefferson Lake—California’s premier asbestos producer: Engineering and Mining Journal, v. 163, no. 

10, October, p. 84-89.

Industrial Minerals, 1993, Teranov recommences asbestos 

production: Industrial Minerals, no. 309, June, p. 12.

References Cited
52 Mineral Commodity Profiles—Asbestos

International Ban Asbestos Secretariat, 2004, Asbestos regulations/bans: Web site at http://www.btinternet.com/~ibas/

Frames/sf_content_current_bans.htm. (Accessed December 

6, 2004).

Internal Revenue Service, 2004, Percentage depletion rates, 

in Title 26—Internal Revenue Service: National Archives 

and Records Administration, Office of the Federal Register 

Code of Federal Regulations, 26 CFR §81.613-2, 

p. 412-415.

Jacko, M.G., and Rhee, S.K., 1992, Brake linings and clutch 

facings, in Kirk-Othmer encyclopedia of chemical technology: New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., p. 523-536.

Johnson, N.F., and Mossman, B.T., 2001, Dose, dimension, 

durability and biopersistence of chrysotile asbestos, in

Nolan, R.P., Langer, A.M., Ross, Malcolm, Wicks, F.J., and 

Martin, R.F., eds., The health effects of chrysotile asbestos: Ottawa, Ontario: The Canadian Mineralogist, Special 

Publication 5, p. 145-154.

Kendall, Thomas, 1980, Asbestos production: Industrial Minerals, no. 372, September, p. 80-87.

Kobayashi, Mitsuru, 2002, Nonasbestos friction materials: 

U.S. Patent 6,413,622, assigned to Nisshinbo Industries, 

Inc., 9 p.

Lamarche, R.Y., and Riordon, P.H., 1981, Geology and genesis 

of the chrysotile asbestos deposits of northern Appalachia, 

in Riordon, P.H., ed., Geology of asbestos deposits: New 

York, Society of Mining Engineers, American Institute of 

Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc., 

p. 11-23.

Larsen, E.S., 1941, Alkalic rocks of Iron Hill, Gunnison 

County, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Professional 

Paper 197-A, 64 p.

Leake, Bernard, and others, 1997, Nomenclature of amphiboles—Report of the subcommittee on amphiboles of the 

International Mineralogical Association—Commission on 

new minerals and mineral names: Canadian Mineralogist, 

v. 35, part 1, February, p. 219-246.

Li, T.M., 1975, Environmental compliance assures future production at Jaquays asbestos operation: Mining Engineering, 

v. 27, no. 3, March, p. 40-45.

Mann, E.L., 1983, Asbestos, in Lefond, S.J., ed., Industrial 

minerals and rocks, (5th ed.): New York, Society of Mining 

Engineers, American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and 

Petroleum Engineers, Inc., p. 435-484.

May, T.M., 1965, Asbestos, in Mineral facts and problems: 

U.S. Bureau of Mines Bulletin 630, p. 81-90.

May, T.M., and Lewis, R.W., 1970, Asbestos, in Mineral facts 

and problems: U.S. Bureau of Mines Bulletin 650, 

p. 851-863.

McCallie, S.W., 1910, A preliminary report on the mineral 

resources of Georgia: Geological Survey of Georgia Bulletin No. 23, 37 p.

Meeker, G.P., Bern, A.M., Brownfield, I.K., Lowers, H.A., 

Sutley, S.J., Hoefen, T.M., and Vance, J.S., 2003, The 

composition and morphology of amphiboles from the Rainy 

Creek Complex, near Libby, Montana: American Mineralogist, v. 88, no. 11-12, part 2, November-December, 

p. 1955-1969.

Meylan, W.M., Howard, P.H., Lande, S.S., and Hanchett, 

Arnold, 1978, Chemical market input/output analysis of 

selected chemical substances to assess sources of environmental contamination—Task III asbestos: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA 560/6-78-005, 313 p.

Mining Engineering, 2004, Canada’s Black Lake asbestos 

mine to close: Mining Engineering, v. 56, no. 7, July, p. 13.

Mine Safety and Health Administration, 2004, Asbestos exposure limit—Unified agenda: Web site at 

http://www.msha.gov/regs/unified/1219%2Dab24.asp. 

(Accessed October 14, 2004).

Moore, Paul, 2004, Chrysotile in crisis: Industrial Minerals, 

no. 439, April, p. 56-61.

Munro, R.C., and Reim, K.M., 1962, Coalinga asbestos 

fiber—A newcomer to the asbestos industry: Mining Engineering, v. 14, no. 9, September, p. 60-62.

Murray, Robert, 1990, Asbestos—A chronology of its origins 

and health effects: British Journal of Industrial Medicine, v. 

47, June, p. 361-365.

National Institutes of Health, 1991, Asbestos—An information 

resource: National Institutes of Health No. 81-1681, 179 p.

Nolan, R.P., Langer, A.M., and Wilson, Richard, 1999, A risk 

assessment for exposure to grunerite asbestos (amosite) in 

an iron ore mine, in Proceedings of National Academy of 

Sciences Colloquium, Irvine, Calif., November 8-9, 1998: 

National Academy of Sciences, v. 96, no. 7, March 30, p. 

3412-3419.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 1994, Occupational exposure to asbestos—Final rule: Federal Register, 

v. 59, no. 153, August 10, p. 40964-41162.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 2004, OSHA 

standards—Asbestos: Web site at 

http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/asbestos/standards.html. 

(Accessed October 14, 2004).
53

Omenn, G.S., Merchant, J.A., Boatman, E., Dement, J.M., 

Kuschner, M, Nicholson, W., Peto, J., and Rosenstock, L., 

1986, Contribution of environmental fibers to respiratory 

cancer: Environmental Health Perspectives, v. 70, December, p. 51-56.

Pardee, J.T., and Larsen, E.S., 1929, Deposits of vermiculite 

and other minerals in the Rainy Creek District near Libby, 

Montana: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 805-B, 29 p.

Peipins, L.A., Lewin, Michael, Campolucci, Sharon, Lybarger, 

J.A., Miller, Aubrey, Middleton, Daniel, Weis, Christopher, 

Spence, Michael, Black, Bradley, and Kapil, Vikas, 2003, 

Radiographic abnormalities and exposure to asbestos-contaminated vermiculite in the community of Libby, Montana, 

USA: Environmental Health Perspectives, v. 111, no. 14, 

November, p. 1753-1759.

Perron, Louis, 2003, Asbestos 2002: Web site at http://www.

nrcan.gc.ca/mms/cmy/content/2002/20.pdf. (Accessed 

October 20, 2004).

Pit and Quarry, 1970, Canadian Johns-Manville retreating 

asbestos ore tailings: Pit and Quarry, November, v. 33, 

no. 5, p. 111-112.

Pye, A.M., 1989a, Alternatives to asbestos in industrial applications, in Michaels, L., and Chissick, S.S., eds., Asbestos—Properties, applications, and hazards: New York, John 

Wiley and Sons, Inc., p. 339-373.

Pye, A.M., 1989b, The feasibility of substitution in Hodgson, 

A.A., ed., Alternatives to asbestos—The pros and cons: 

New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 195 p.

Quebec Asbestos Information Service, 1959, The strangest 

mineral ever known: Montreal, Quebec Asbestos Information Service, September, [unpaginated].

Ralston, J., and Kitchener, J.A., 1975, The surface chemistry 

of amosite asbestos, an amphibole silicate: Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, v. 50, no. 2, February, 

p. 242-249.

Rice, Carol, and Heineman, E.F., 2003, An asbestos job exposure matrix to characterize fiber type, length, and relative 

exposure intensity: Applied Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, v. 18, no. 7, July, p. 506-512.

Rosato, D.V., 1959, Asbestos—Its industrial applications: 

New York, Reinhold Publishing Corp., 214 p.

Roskill Information Services, Ltd., 1983, The economics of 

asbestos (5th ed.): London, Roskill Information Services, 

Ltd., 188 p.

Roskill Information Services, Ltd., 1990, The economics of 

asbestos (6th ed.): London, Roskill Information Services, 

Ltd., 143 p.

Roskill Information Services, Ltd., 1995, Asbestos—Market 

update, analysis & outlook: London, Roskill Information 

Services, Ltd., 43 p.

Ross, Malcolm, 1981, The geologic occurrences and health 

hazards of amphibole and serpentine asbestos, in Veblen, 

D.R., ed., Amphiboles and other hydrous pyriboles—Mineralogy: Washington, D.C., Mineralogical Society of America Reviews in Mineralogy, v. 9A, p. 279-319.

Ross, Malcolm, 1984, A survey of asbestos-related disease in 

trades and mining occupations and in factory and mining 

communities as a means of predicting health risks of nonoccupational exposure to fibrous minerals, in Levadie, Benjamin, ed., Definitions for asbestos and other health-related 

silicates: Philadelphia, American Society for Testing and 

Materials Special Technical Publication 834, p. 51-104.

Ross, Malcolm, and Virta, R.L., 2001, Occurrence, production, and uses of asbestos, in Nolan, R.P., Langer, A.M., 

Ross, Malcolm, Wicks, F.J., and Marin, R.F., eds., The 

health effects of chrysotile asbestos: Ottawa, Mineralogical 

Association of Canada, p. 79-88.

Ross, Malcolm, Kuntze, R.A., and Clifton, R.A., 1984, A definition for asbestos, in Levadie, Benjamin, ed., Definitions 

for asbestos and other health-related silicates: Philadelphia, 

American Society for Testing and Materials Special Technical Publication 834, p. 139-147.

Rowbotham, P.I., ed., 1970, World asbestos industry: Industrial Minerals, no. 28, January, p. 17-29.

Schatzberger, W.M., 1979, Survey of energy contents of three 

cladding materials: Stonemarket, United Kingdom, Schape 

Associates Reference 9706, September 24, 9 p.

Selikoff, I.J., Churg, J., and Hammond, E.C., 1964, Asbestos 

exposure and neoplasia: Journal of the Medical Association, v. 188, April, p. 22-26.

Selikoff, I.J., and Lee, D.H.K., 1978, Asbestos and disease: 

New York, Academic Press, 549 p.

Sinclair, W.E., 1959, Asbestos—Its origin, production, and 

utilization: London, Mining Publications, Ltd., 512 p.

Skinner, H.C.W., Ross, Malcolm, and Frondel, Clifford, 1988, 

Asbestos and other fibrous materials: New York., Oxford 

University Press, Inc., 204 p.

Stewart, L.A., 1955, Chrysotile-asbestos deposits of Arizona: 

U.S. Bureau of Mines Information Circular 7706, 124 p.

Stewart, R.V., 1981, Geology and evaluation of the Asbestos 

Hill ore body, in Riordon, P.H., ed., Geology of asbestos 

deposits: New York, Society of Mining Engineers, American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc., p. 53-62.

References Cited
54 Mineral Commodity Profiles—Asbestos

Stewart, P., French, G., and Anthony, D., 1990, Baie Verte wet 

process plant: Industrial Minerals, no. 273, June, p. 51-55.

Teague, K.H. 1956, Georgia occurrences described: Georgia 

Mineral Newsletter, v. 9, no. 1, spring, p. 4-7.

United Nations, 2004, UN commodity trade statistics database: Web site at http://unstats.un.org/unsd/comtrade. 

(Accessed September 15. 2004).

U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1934-1996, Asbestos in various titled 

Metals and minerals and metals, minerals, and fuels: U.S. 

Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook, 1932-1994, [variously 

paginated].

U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1945, Asbestos mines—Gila County, 

Arizona: U.S. Bureau of Mines War Minerals Report 370, 

18 p.

U.S. Bureau of Mines and U.S. Geological Survey, 1980, Principles of a resource reserve clarification for minerals: U.S. 

Geological Survey Circular 831, 722 p.

U.S. Census Bureau, 1999, 1997 economic census—All other 

miscellaneous nonmetallic mineral product manufacturing: 

U.S. Census Bureau Industry Series EC97M-3279E, 27 p.

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1995, Abrasive, asbestos, and 

miscellaneous nonmetallic mineral products—1992 census 

of manufacturers: U.S. Department of Commerce MC92-I32E, 43 p.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1992, Asbestos publications: Cincinnati, U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, June, 190 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1985, Guidance for 

controlling asbestos-containing materials in buildings: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticides and 

Toxic Substances, 95 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1988, Regulatory 

impact analysis of controls on asbestos and asbestos products: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 

Toxic Substances, v. 3, appendix F, May 6, 497 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2004a, Asbestos 

in your home: Web site at http://www.epa.gov/asbestos/

ashome.html. (Accessed November 9, 2004).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2004b, Laws and 

regulations: Web site at http://www.epa.gov/asbestos/

asbreg.html. (Accessed October 14, 2004).

U.S. Geological Survey, 1901-1921, Asbestos: U.S. Geological Survey Mineral Resources of the United States 1900-

1919, pt. II, [variously paginated].

U.S. Geological Survey, 1924-1932, Asbestos, in Metals and 

minerals: U.S. Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook 1920-

1931, [variously paginated].

U.S. Geological Survey, 1997-2005, Asbestos, in Metals and 

minerals: U.S. Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook 1995-

2003, pt. I, [variously paginated].

U.S. International Trade Commission, 2004a, 2004 tariff database: Web site at http://dataweb.usitc.gov/scripts/

tariff2004.asp. (Accessed October 20, 2004).

U.S. International Trade Commission, 2004b, USITC interactive tariff and trade dataweb: Web site at 

http://www.itc.gov. (Accessed October 20, 2004).

Van Gosen, B.S., Lowers, H.A., Bush, A.L., Meeker, G.P., 

Plumlee, G.S., Brownfield, I.K., and Sutley, S.J., 2002, 

Reconnaissance study of the geology of U.S. vermiculite 

deposits—Are asbestos minerals common constituents?: 

U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 2192, 8 p.

Van Gosen, B.S., Lowers, H.A., Sutley, S.J., and Gent, C.A., 

2004, Using the geologic setting of talc deposits as an 

indicator of amphibole asbestos content: Environmental 

Geology, v. 45, no. 7, May, p. 920-939.

van Oss, C.J., Naim, J.O., Costanzo, P.M., Giese, R.F. Jr., Wu, 

W., and Sorling, A.F., 1999, Impact of different asbestos 

species and other mineral particles on pulmonary pathogenesis: Clays and Clay Minerals, v. 47, no. 6, December, 

p. 697-707.

Virta, R.L., 1985-1996, Asbestos, in Metals and minerals: 

U.S. Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook 1984-1994, v. 1, 

[variously paginated].

Virta, R.L., 1990, Asbestos: U.S. Bureau of Mines Mineral 

Commodity Summaries 1990, p. 24-25.

Virta, R.L., 1994, Asbestos substitutes, in Carr, D.D., ed., 

Industrial minerals and rocks (6th ed.): Littleton, Colo., 

Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc., 

p. 429-434.

Virta, R.L., 1997-2005, Asbestos, in Metals and minerals: 

U.S. Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook 1995-2003, v. I, 

[variously paginated].

Virta, R.L., 2001, Some facts about asbestos: U.S. Geological 

Survey Fact Sheet FS-012-01, 4 p.

Virta, R.L., 2002a, Asbestos: U.S. Geological Survey Mineral 

Commodity Summaries 2002, p. 26-27.

Virta, R.L., 2002b, Asbestos—Geology, mineralogy, mining, 

and uses: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 02-

149, 35 p.

Virta, R.L., 2003, Worldwide asbestos supply and consumption trends from 1900 to 2000: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 03-83, 59 p.

Virta, R.L., 2004a, Asbestos: U.S. Geological Survey Mineral 

Commodity Summaries 2004, p. 26-27.
55

Virta, R.L., 2004b, Asbestos, in Metals and minerals: U.S. 

Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook 2002, v. I, p. 8.1-8.6. 

(Also available on the Internet through 

http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/

asbestos).

Virta, R.L., 2005, Asbestos, in Metals and minerals: U.S. 

Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook, 2003, v. I, p. 8.1-8.6. 

(Also available on the Internet through 

http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/

asbestos).

Virta, R.L., and Mann, E.L., 1994, Asbestos, in Carr, D.D., 

ed., Industrial minerals and rocks (6th ed.): Littleton, Colo., 

Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc., 

p. 97-124.

White, M.J., 2002, Why the asbestos genie won’t stay in the 

bankruptcy bottle: Web site at http://weber.ucsd.edu/

~miwhite. (Accessed July 7, 2004).

Wilson, E.D., 1928, Asbestos deposits of Arizona: Arizona 

Bureau of Mines, University of Arizona Bulletin, Mineral 

Technology Series No. 31, 97 p.

Wilson, R., and Price, P., 2001, Trends in incidence of mesothelioma and evaluation of exposure to asbestos, in Nolan, 

R., Langer, A.M., Ross, Malcolm, Wicks, F.J., and Martin, 

R.F., eds., The health effects of chrysotile asbestos: Ottawa, 

The Canadian Mineralogist Special Publication 5, p. 53-62.

Wylie, A.G., 1979, Fiber length and aspect ratio of some 

selected asbestos samples, in Selikoff, I.J, and Hammond, 

E.C., eds., Health hazards of asbestos exposure: New York, 

New York Academy of Sciences, v. 330, issue 1, 

p. 605-610.

Wylie, A.G., and Huggins, C.W., 1980, Characteristics of a 

potassium winchite asbestos from the Allamoore talc district, Texas: Canadian Mineralogist, v. 19, February, 

p. 101-107.

Wylie, A.G., and Verkouteren, J.R., 2000, Amphibole asbestos 

from Libby, Montana—Aspects of nomenclature: American Mineralogist, v. 85, no. 10, October, p. 1540-1542.

Yada, K., 1967, Study of chrysotile asbestos by a high resolution microscope: Acta Chrystalogica, v. 23, November, 

p. 704-710.

Zielhuis, R.L., ed., 1977, Public health risks of exposure to 

asbestos: Oxford, Pergamon Press Ltd., 149 p.

References Cited
56 Mineral Commodity Profiles—Asbestos

Appendix

Definitions of Reserves, Reserve Base, 

and Resources

The term “resources,” as applied to metals, refers to those 

concentrations of metal-bearing minerals in the Earth’s crust 

that are currently or potentially amenable to the economic 

extraction of one or more metals from them. “Reserves” and 

“reserve base” are subcategories of resources. “Reserves” 

refers to the in-place metal content of ores that can be mined 

and processed at a profit given the metal prices, available 

technology, and economic conditions that prevail at the time 

the reserves estimate is made.

“Reserve base” is a more inclusive term that encompasses 

not only reserves proper, but marginally economic reserves 

and a discretionary part of subeconomic resources—“those 

parts of the resources that have a reasonable potential for 

becoming economically available within planning horizons 

beyond those that assume proven technology and current economics” (U.S. Bureau of Mines and U.S. Geological Survey, 

1980).