# 2009 Minerals Yearbook

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

# CEMENT [ADVANCE RELEASE]

July 2011CEMENT—2009 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 16.1 

# C EMENT By Hendrik G. van Oss
Domestic survey tables were prepared by Michelle B. Blackwell, statistical assistant, and the world production table was prepared by Glenn J. Wallace, international data coordinator.

Combined production of portland and masonry cement in the United States in 2009 was 63.9 million metric tons (Mt). This was a 25.9% decline from production in 2008, a 35.6% decrease from the record output in 2005 (table 1), and the lowest level of output since 1983. Consumption of portland and masonry cement as measured by sales to domestic fi nal customers decreased in 2009 by 26.7% to 71.0 Mt (table 9), also the lowest level since 1983 and nearly 57 Mt or 44.5% lower than the 2005 record. In contrast, the decline in sales prices (mill net valuation basis) in 2009 was comparatively modest (tables 1, 11–13). Overall, the value of cement sales totaled $7.0 billion, down by about 30% from that of 2008. Based on typical portland cement mixing ratios in concrete, the delivered value of concrete (excluding mortar) in the United States was estimated to be at least $47 billion in 2009.

Percentage or other changes expressed in this report compare activity in 2009 with that of 2008 unless speci fi ed otherwise. Except where otherwise indicated, activity levels in this report exclude those in Puerto Rico. Cements covered in this report are mainly limited to those hydraulic varieties broadly classi fi ed as portland cement (including blended cement and other varieties listed in table 15) and/or masonry cement (including portland-lime and plastic cements); these are the binding agents in concrete and most mortars. A few other types of hydraulic cements and/or clinker (notably aluminous cement) are included in some of the trade data (tables 16–18 and 21) and within the world production data (table 22). Except where incorporated as components within fi nished portland (blended) or masonry cements, this report’s tables exclude supplementary cementitious materials (SCM), such as fl y ash, other pozzolans, and ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS). Sales data for blended (also called composite) cements listed separately from portland cement are available in the monthly Mineral Industry Surveys reports of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).

The bulk of this report is based on data compiled from USGS annual questionnaires sent to cement and clinker manufacturing plants and associated distribution facilities and import terminals, and some terminals that are independent of U.S. cement manufacturers. For 2009, questionnaires were received from 152 of 156 facilities canvassed, a response rate of 97%, which included all of the production sites. For 2008, questionnaires were received from 149 of 152 facilities canvassed, a response rate of 98%, including all of the production sites. If missing data could not be obtained by followup telephone inquiries, they were estimated based on monthly data or past annual reporting. For both years, the data exclude several importers that have yet to participate in the surveys. To the degree that they are independent of the participating companies, sales by the missing importers for 2008 and 2009 are estimated to be equivalent to an additional 1% of the total portland cement sales tonnages shown in this report. Background information on cement and its manufacture and on the USGS cement canvasses can be found in van Oss (2005). Government Programs and Environmental Issues

A number of ongoing Government programs provide funding and direction for public sector construction and were thus of importance to cement consumption levels. In 2009, stimulus program spending allotments, including those related to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, were being compared to individual State spending of the appropriated monies as a means to predict increases in cement demand. By late 2009, it was evident that very little of the stimulus spending during the year had been for cement (concrete) but it was anticipated that the concrete industry would signi fi cantly bene fi t from ARRA funding in 2010 (Sullivan, 2010).

Environmental issues associated with the cement industry mostly result from the manufacture of the intermediate product called clinker. In clinker manufacture, the burning of large amounts of raw materials and fuels leads to signi fi cant emissions of carbon dioxide (CO 2 

### ), and can yield signi fi cant emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), mercury and some other metals, volatile organic carbon compounds, and particulates. Increasingly, these emissions are regulated or are being considered for regulation or reregulation. The largest volume emissions are of CO 2 

### ; the cement industry is one of the leading industrial emitters of this greenhouse gas (GHG). Overall, generation of CO 2 

### by the U.S. cement industry in 2009 was calculated to be in the range of 0.87 to 0.92 metric ton (t) of CO 2 

### per ton of clinker produced; the high end incorporates fuel combustion emissions calculated using “standard” heat values for the fuels consumed (table 7), and the low end incorporates heat values actually reported by the individual plants. Both ratios include a standard emissions factor from calcination of limestone of 0.51 t of CO 2 

### per ton of clinker as detailed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Hanle and others, 2006), but exclude any correction for cement kiln dust (CKD) not recycled to the kiln (for which data are lacking). However, the standard calcination component of CO 2 

### emissions can be reduced in the calculation in proportion to the calcium oxide contributed by noncarbonate alternative raw materials such as ferrous slags and coal combustion ashes. This incorporation would allow a reduction of calcination-related emissions of about 2.4% (0.7 Mt of CO 2 

### ) in 2009 and 2.7% (nearly 1.1 Mt of CO 2 

### ) in 2008; relative reductions can be signi fi cantly larger for the subset of individual plants that actually burn these alternative raw materials. Certain fuels, including alternative or waste fuels, can either directly reduce plant-level CO 2 

### emissions or may lead to reductions in reported16.2 [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2009 

### emissions from combustion because the fuels are considered to be carbon-neutral (certain biofuels) or because credits may be allowed for their use (certain waste fuels). Plant-level emissions can be reduced through upgrading to more fuel-ef fi cient kiln line technology. Unit emissions can also be reduced by use of SCM in fi nished cement and in concrete to reduce the clinker content of these products and/or by allowing the addition of “inert” fi llers to boost cement output without simultaneously boosting clinker output.

In past years, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) used methods similar to those used above to calculate and report overall U.S. levels of GHG emissions by various industries; for cement, these methods made use of national-level clinker production data published by the USGS. However, to more accurately determine U.S. emissions of GHG, in October, the EPA released a final rule for mandatory site/plantspeci fi c reporting of GHG emissions (to begin in 2010) (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2009b). For the cement industry’s CO 2 

### emissions, relevant calculation procedures for fuel combustion are covered under Part 98, subpart C (p. 56397– 56411) and, for calcination and related process emissions, in subpart H (p. 56420–56422).

In May, the EPA proposed new, very low, limits on individual plant emissions of mercury, total hydrocarbons, particulate matter, and hydrochloric acid within a set of national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for the U.S. cement industry (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2009a). It was unclear how many U.S. cement plants would be able to comply with the new NESHAP limits for all four listed pollutants. The new standards for mercury were set so stringent (for existing plants, 43 pounds of mercury per million short tons of clinker produced; and for new plants, 14 pounds of mercury per million short tons of clinker produced) as to possibly preclude, absent the installation of mercury scrubbers, which could be very expensive, the use at many plants of their normal raw materials and of coal as a fuel. The NESHAP could end the use of fl y ash as an alternative raw material for clinker manufacture; fl y ash commonly has a high mercury content and this content was expected to increase as coal- fi red powerplants installed their own scrubbers. The mercury-scrubbing technology most commonly discussed makes use of activated carbon, and this mercury-laden carbon (at a powerplant) would report to the fl y ash. A discussion of the cement NESHAP is provided by O’Hare (2009).

The EPA was evaluating changing the regulatory classi fi cation of coal combustion byproducts, particularly fl y ash, under conditions of long-term or permanent storage (disposal) and for various usage purposes. Concern in the construction sector was that if fl y ash were to be reclassi fi ed as a hazardous waste, even under restricted circumstances, the material would be stigmatized and demand for it would decrease or cease altogether (Goss, 2010).

Production

Continued declining sales of cement, together with an apparent drawdown of cement stockpiles, and despite a major decline in cement imports, led to a 25.6% decrease in portland cement production in 2009 to just 62.0 Mt (table 3). This was the lowest production since 1983 and was nearly 32 Mt less than the record output in 2005. Production fell in all districts except Indiana. Yearend stocks of portland cement fell by 28%. Owing to two plants coming online during the year (Florida and Missouri) and of some new mills at existing plants, overall grinding capacity increased by about 6%. The capacities and plant counts listed in table 3 for 2009 are, however, somewhat uncertain because of dif fi culties differentiating between plants reported as “idle” (or “inde fi nitely idle”) and those that were permanently “closed.” At least in terms of sales, some such plants continued to operate as distribution terminals. Likewise, plants that closed their kilns in late 2008 may have continued to grind remaining clinker stocks until they were exhausted in early 2009 after which the fi nish mills were closed as well. The USGS policy has been to count as active all plants having production for at least 1 day during the year, but this policy may not be realistic for plants idle all year and which offered few prospects of ever reopening. Thus, in a few locations, a decision was made for the 2009 tally to exclude plants that were “idle” throughout 2009–10 and for which a formal closure announcement was made in 2010. In one district, an ultimately closed plant was retained in the 2009 count because it made a small quantity of masonry cement early in the year, thus still having active grinding capacity. Another plant, seemingly closed, retained the possibility of restarting its fi nish mill. One plant in Florida that had been announced as closed in late 2008 was retained in the 2009 count despite no production during the year because its status was con fi rmed as idled, rather than closed. For masonry cement, a stagnant housing construction sector during the year led to a decline in cement production of 35% to just 2.0 Mt, the lowest level since at least 1954.

With common parents combined under the larger subsidiary’s name and with joint ventures apportioned, the 10 leading companies at yearend 2009, in descending order of portland cement production, were Holcim (US) Inc., CEMEX, Inc., Lafarge North America Inc., Lehigh Cement Co., Buzzi Unicem USA Inc. (including Alamo Cement Co.), Ash Grove Cement Co., Texas Industries, Inc. (TXI), Essroc Cement Corp., CalPortland Co., and St. Marys Cement Inc. The listing was unchanged from that of 2008. The U.S. industry continued to be heavily consolidated—the leading 5 cement companies, combined, contributed 59% of total U.S. portland cement production, and the leading 10 companies accounted for 81% of total production. Of the above named companies, all except Ash Grove and TXI were foreign owned as of yearend, and for the industry overall, about 77% of total cement output was by foreign-owned companies.

Clinker output in 2009 fell by 28.4% to 56.1 Mt (tables 1, 5). This was the lowest level since 1982. Production fell in all months, and for the year overall in all districts. Owing to a new plant coming online, the commencement of production from a plant that was completed at yearend 2008, and upgrades at some existing plants, apparent annual capacity increased by 6.5%; this was despite the removal in the 2009 total of plants or kilns closed during 2008. Utilization of clinker production capacity was only about 49% in 2009, well down from the 73% of the previous year and the presumed “full practicable” capacity utilization of 85% or more experienced during yearsCEMENT—2009 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 16.3 

### of high cement sales volumes. The performance in 2009

re fl ected a combination of permanent kiln or plant closures and long-term idling of “extra” kilns at multikiln plants. However, the utilization statistic is dependent on the reported downtime for routine maintenance. Many plants reported much longer than normal downtimes for this purpose in 2009; where this was obvious, corrections were made after consultation with the plants to remove the extra downtime (a result of slow sales) from the statistic. Yearend clinker stockpiles decreased by nearly 30%, likely re fl ecting yet more kiln idlings late in the year. Nonfuel raw materials consumed to make clinker and cement are listed in table 6. Ratios among clinker raw materials consumed in 2009 appear to be broadly similar to those in 2008. For fl y ash and bottom ash, the data are similar to those published by the American Coal Ash Association (ACAA) for sales for use in making clinker and cement (combined), namely 2.210 Mt of fl y ash and 0.654 Mt of bottom ash (American Coal Ash Association, 2010; Goss, 2010). The ACAA also noted sales of 0.382 Mt of synthetic gypsum to the cement industry; this is less than the 0.47 Mt or more of this material included within the “Gypsum and anhydrite” data in table 6, but could re fl ect the fact that the ACAA does not survey the cement plants’ own manufacture of this material.

Data on fuel consumption by the cement industry are listed in table 7. Data shifts can re fl ect activities at just a few plants. In terms of overall mass ratios among fuels in total and relative to clinker production, signi fi cant changes in 2009 were evident for several fuels but in part re fl ected closure and full-year idling of several wet kilns and some less ef fi cient long dry kilns during the year. A much smaller percentage of clinker was contributed by wet kilns in 2009, for example. The signi fi cant increase in the consumption of natural gas re fl ects a combination of the incorporation of large amounts of land fi ll gas at two plants, and a shift from gas as a warm up fuel to a major use fuel reported at two facilities. Some of the other apparent shifts re fl ect upgrades, including conversions from wet to dry kiln technology at some plants.

Although not revealed in table 7, overall heat consumption (gross heat basis) in 2009 was about 3.9 billion joules (GJ) per metric ton of clinker, down by about 9% from that in 2008. The reduction re fl ected the closure or idling of wet kilns and less ef

fi cient dry kilns during the year. Heat energy consumption at the remaining operational wet kilns averaged 6.0 GJ per ton of clinker, down by nearly 8%. Dry kilns averaged 3.6 GJ per ton of clinker, down by 10%. Thus, ef fi ciency apparently improved despite much longer and perhaps more frequent than normal total downtimes (for all reasons) on the operational kilns. It is possible that further reductions in unit energy consumption will be realized if and when the industry resumes more normal operating schedules. As in past years, coal supplied the largest share of the heat consumed (60%, down by about 7%), followed by petroleum coke (about 21%, unchanged), and waste fuels (13%, up by 22%). As noted above, natural gas, including land fi ll gas, use increased markedly; it contributed about 5% of total heat in 2009, up by 74%.

The average unit electricity consumption increased again in 2009 (table 8); this most likely re fl ects operational disruptions (idlings and closures, repairs, plant upgrades) at many plants, and a greater reliance on dry plants. Dry plants, commonly, have higher unit electricity consumption than do wet plants.

There were no signi fi cant ownership changes in the U.S. cement industry in 2009. Two new plants were brought into production during the year. American Cement Co., LLC beganoperations early in the year at its 1.0-million-metric-ton-peryear (Mt/yr) plant at Sumterville, FL; plant construction had been completed at yearend 2008. Initial cement production was from purchased clinker, but the plant started its own clinker production in May. American Cement was a joint venture between Oldcastle Materials, Inc. and New Jersey-based Trap Rock Industries, Inc. In July, Holcim fi red the 4.0-Mt/yr precalciner kiln at its new plant in St. Genevieve County, MO; this kiln was said to have the largest annual capacity of any in the world and was expected, at full output levels, to put Missouri at or near the forefront of U.S. clinker production.

The litany of plant closures and long-term or inde fi nite idlings of plants that began in 2008 continued in 2009, although many of the facilities continued to operate as storage, packaging, and transshipment terminals for cement sourced elsewhere. At the end of January, Ash Grove inde fi nitely idled the wet kilns at its Inkom, ID, plant, but the facility continued to produce cement from clinker stockpiles and from clinker brought in from another Ash Grove plant. CalPortland idled the long dry kilns at its Colton, CA, plant during the course of the year but continued to make cement from clinker brought in from the company’s Mojave, CA, facility. CEMEX con fi rmed that its Brooksville “North” plant in Florida was on inde fi nite idle status in 2009, and had not been closed as had been reported in 2008. Essroc closed the wet kilns at its Bessemer, PA, plant at the end of April and shut the fi nish mill there at the end of September. At the end of April, Holcim shut its wet plants at Dundee, MI, and Clarksville, MO; the Clarksville plant’s kiln was the longest in the world. At the same time, the company inde fi nitely idled its wet plant at Artesia, MS, and in September, inde fi nitely idled its dry plant at Mason City, IA. In addition to these plant closures and/or inde fi nite idlings, many multikiln plants had one or more kilns idle for all or part of the year.

Major kiln line upgrades were completed at three cement plants in 2009. In August, Buzzi Unicem fi red the new 1.2 Mt/yr precalciner kiln at its River (also known as the Festus or Selma plant), at Festus, MO; the new kiln replaced the existing pair of long dry kilns (Buzzi Unicem, 2009). Also in November, Keystone Cement Co. fi red its new precalciner kiln line at Bath, PA; the new 1.2-Mt/yr line replaced the plant’s pair of wet kilns, which were shut down at the same time. In August, Essroc closed the three wet kilns at its Martinsburg, WV, plant and in November fi red the plant’s new 2.0-Mt/yr precalciner kiln that had been under construction.

Some ongoing upgrade projects were cancelled or postponed in light of poor cement sales. An example was the January announcement by TXI that it was postponing further work on the expansion project at its cement plant at Hunter, TX (Texas Industries, 2009); the project was expected to resume once market conditions improved.16.4 [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2009 

### Consumption

Cement consumption data for the United States were surveyed and reported monthly by the USGS in terms of sales to fi nal customers and are summarized in table 9. Although the national sales totals in table 9 are similar to the shipments totals in tables 11, 12, and 14, only the table 9 breakout tonnages represent State-level consumption. The regional breakouts in tables 11, 12, and 14 simply pertain to the locations of the reporting entities (chie fl y the production sites), not the locations of consumption. It is very common for shipments to cross State lines.

The U.S. cement market in 2009 continued a decline that began in early to mid-2006; this re fl ected ongoing stagnation in several construction sectors, particularly in housing, a tight loan market, and continued declines in State property tax revenues. Decreases in sales of cement were experienced in all months during the year. Total sales of portland cement to domestic fi nal customers fell by 26.5% to 68.9 Mt, the lowest level since 1983. Sales declined in all districts; those into the three traditionally leading consuming States (California, Florida, and Texas) were down by about 32% in 2009. Although sensitive to the accuracy of the population data, per capita consumption of portland cement was just 220 kg in 2009, the lowest level since 1947; the amount in 2008 was 413 kg. Masonry cement consumption decreased by 31.0% to 2.1 Mt, the lowest level since 1949.

Sales by some importers that did not participate in the USGS monthly and annual surveys were not included in the portland cement consumption data in this report. An estimate of these missing importers’ sales can be made by comparing of fi cial (U.S. Census Bureau) trade data (tables 17 and 21) with the import origins of sales (table 9). The of fi cial cement imports were about 0.3 Mt higher than the foreign origin tonnages in 2009 and 1.5 Mt higher than those in 2008; however, the discrepancy in 2009 appears to be too small based on known missing data for cement from the Republic of Korea into the Philadelphia, PA, customs district (0.139 Mt), and of much of the material from Colombia into the Houston, TX, and Wilmington, NC, districts (0.369 Mt). It appears that part of the reason for the difference in 2009 is that the table 9 import origins of sales data include a large component of drawdown of stocks, as suggested by the large yearend stockpile decline for importers listed in table 3. Adjusting for both years for cement varieties that are in the trade tables but not covered by the USGS canvasses (chie fl y aluminous cement) and for apparent drawdown of stocks, which cannot fully distinguish between imported and domestic cement, it becomes evident that the annual tables are missing about 0.5 Mt of cement sales in 2009 and about 1 Mt in 2008.

As the binder in concrete, cement consumption levels within a given category of construction will broadly re fl ect levels of construction spending, although signi fi cant time lags may exist between the onset or cutoff of spending and changes in the consumption of cement. In terms of 1996 constant dollars, overall construction spending in 2009 fell by 15% to $552 billion (Portland Cement Association, 2011). Within this spending, public sector construction was the largest share, at $184 billion, down by 0.8% only. Residential construction, which had been the dominant sector in 2008, fell in 2009 by 25% to $168 billion. Nonresidential construction spending was $133 billion, down by 21%.

Portland cement sales broken out by customer type are listed in table 14. Sales to ready-mixed concrete producers accounted for about 71% of total shipments, but the true tonnage for this type of concrete was larger because some of it was recorded under other customer categories, such as road paving contractors. As listed, the sales to ready-mixed customers declined by 27%, in line with the decrease in overall portland cement sales. The decline in residential construction spending noted above is in line with the 34% decline in sales tonnages of cement for brick and block; and the decline in nonresidential private and public sector spending noted is in line with reduced sales of cement for precast–prestressed concrete products (down by 28%), and for road paving (down by 22%). Sales of cement for oil well and gas well drilling fell by 45%, in line with sharply reduced oil and gas prices and drilling activities in 2009.

Sales of different types of portland cement are broken out in table 15. As in past years, sales were dominated by Types I and II cements and sulfate-resistant varieties of cement (Type V and Type II/V hybrids reported as Type V). Sales of these cements fell more or less proportionately to overall portland cement sales. Oil well cement sales fell by 42%, a result similar to that in table 14 noted above. White cement sales fell by 30%. As in past years, the white cement sales tonnage was signi fi cantly less than the imports of white cement (table 20) and would seemingly preclude any need for domestic production of the material. The discrepancy is partly explained by the use of some imported white cement for masonry cement (sales not included in table 15), and by the fact that some imported white cement is blended with domestically produced white cement.

Blended cement sales in table 15 fell by about 34% to 1.3 Mt, but this tonnage is signi fi cantly less than the blended cement sales reported for 2009 in the monthly reports of the USGS (1.6 Mt). It is unclear why this difference exists, except that there could be inconsistent reporting between the monthly and annual surveys of cement sold under the general performance standard ASTM C–1157, which at one time applied only to blended cements but which now applies to hydraulic cements in general.

Data on the mill net values for shipments to fi nal customers by plants and import terminals (terminal nets) are provided in tables 11 to 13. Despite the large drop in sales tonnages, unit prices for portland and masonry cement declined relatively modestly. Foreign Trade

Trade data from the U.S. Census Bureau are presented in tables 16–21. Although at the highest tonnage level since 1948, exports of cement and clinker continued to be small compared with imports. Canada remained by far the dominant destination of the exports, taking about 76% of the total in 2009.

Total imports of cement and clinker in 2009 fell by 40.5% to 6.8 Mt (table 17), the lowest total since 1992 and a decline of 28.8 Mt from the record level of 2006. The dominant share of imports was gray portland cement, imports of which fell by nearly 44% to 5.4 Mt (table 19). Canada continued to be the dominant source of U.S. imports. The tonnage of portlandCEMENT—2009 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 16.5 

### cement imported from Canada in 2009 fell by nearly 20%, but this was a small relative decline compared with those of most other countries. The relative regional sourcing of imports has changed dramatically in recent years. For example, Canada’s share of the U.S. cement and clinker import market was 50% in 2009, much higher than the 14% share it held in 2006. By comparison, Asia, which had accounted for 19.5 Mt or 54% of total imports in 2006, supplied just 1.8 Mt or 26% of the imports in 2009. China alone supplied nearly 30% of total U.S. imports in 2006 but accounted for only 9% of the imports in 2009.

Of fi cial imports of clinker fell by 10.5% to 0.56 Mt (table 21). The clinker data are incomplete, however, with regard to overland imports from Canada; the tonnages listed are insuf fi cient to have fully supplied the grinding plants in Michigan and Washington, all of which imported their clinker from Canada. The unreported Canadian clinker appeared mostly to be coming in by truck, at a value of less than $2,000 (customs value) per truckload; such shipments are classi fi ed as “informal entries” and data on them are not routinely transmitted by the U.S. Customs Service to the U.S. Census Bureau for recordation into the of fi cial trade data (reproduced in tables 17–21). This problem presumably does not exist for imports by rail or by ship because these shipments are larger. Clinker imports from Canada were estimated to be higher than those reported in tables 1 and 21 by about 0.7 Mt in 2008 and by about 0.2 Mt in 2009.

With the decline in imports, especially from Asia, several of the once-busiest import locations have fallen from prominence, and overland import locations have become relatively dominant. For cement and clinker combined, the 10 busiest customs districts of entry in 2009 were, in descending order of tonnage, Detroit, MI; Houston-Galveston, TX; Seattle, WA; Buffalo, NY; Cleveland, OH; Columbia-Snake, OR and WA; Honolulu, HI; El Paso, TX; Ogdensburg, NY; and Savannah, GA (table 18). These leading districts accounted for about 71% of the total imports for the year.

World Review

World hydraulic cement production data are listed in table 22. The data are intended to include all forms of hydraulic cement; however, the data for the United States are for portland and masonry cement only, and data for some other countries also may be incomplete. For some countries, the production data may include exports of clinker.

World cement output in 2009 was an estimated 3.04 billion metric tons (Gt), up by 6.7%. Production was from more than 150 countries. China was again the world’s leading producer by far, with an output of 1.63 Gt or nearly 54% of the world total. The remaining top 20 producers were, in descending order of tonnage, India, the United States, Japan, Turkey, Brazil, the Republic of Korea, Iran, Vietnam, Egypt, Russia, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia (tied), Italy, Mexico, Pakistan, Thailand, Germany, Spain, and Malaysia. Cumulatively, the top 5 countries had about 66% of total world output, the top 10 countries, about 74%, and the top 20 countries, about 85%.

Regionally, Asia and the Paci fi c contributed about 71% of world production, included 9 of the 20 leading producing countries, and continued to experience the greatest growth rate of all regions. The Middle East (including Turkey), had 6.8% of world output; Western Europe, 6.1%; Africa, 4.3%; Central America and South America, combined, 3.8%; North America (including Mexico), 3.7%; the Commonwealth of Independent States, 2.5%; and Eastern Europe, 1.5%.

Outlook

A modest increase in concrete construction in 2010 was expected, based on projected bene fi cial downstream effects of stimulus funding on the general economy and the housing construction sector in particular, and on expected access to ARRA funding. Relatively little ARRA funding had gone to public sector construction projects involving concrete in 2009 and many States still had signi fi cant fractions of their respective ARRA allotments as yet unspent at yearend 2009. However, low revenues to the States from property taxes were expected to continue to hamper State contributions to construction projects funded jointly by State governments and the Federal Government. It was recognized that a return to cement consumption levels approaching those of the peak 2005–06 period was many years away. Of great concern to the cement industry was the proposed portland cement NESHAP, which would impose very low, stringent, limits on mercury and certain other emissions by cement plants. The NESHAP would be dif fi cult to comply with owing to high cost of emissions control equipment and potential problems of suf fi cient control equipment availability within the 3-year NESHAP compliance window. According to some industry analysts, a large number of plants—representing perhaps 25% of U.S. production capacity—might have to close as a result of the NESHAP, forcing the concrete industry to increasingly rely on imported cement. Further, should fl y ash become stigmatized as a result of an EPA reclassi fi cation of it as a hazardous material, the construction sector might lose this material as an alternative raw material or SCM, and thus hamper efforts to reduce the GHG “footprint” associated with concrete construction.

References Cited
American Coal Ash Association, 2010, 2009 coal combustion product

(CCP) production and use survey report: Aurora, CO, American Coal Ash Association fact sheet, 1 p. Buzzi Unicem, 2009, The largest line of the group: Casale Monferrato, Italy,

Buzzi Unicem press release, September 24, 1 p. Goss, D.C., 2010, Usage declines may signal beginning of troubling trend: Ash

at work, issue 2, p. 14–17. Hanle, Lisa, Maldonado, Pedro, Onuma, Eiichi, Tichy, Milos, and van Oss,

H.G., 2006, Mineral industry emissions, chap. 2 of Eggleston, Simon, Buenda, Leandro, Miwa, Kyoko, Ngara, Todd, and Tanabe, Kiyoto, eds., Industrial processes and product use: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, v. 3, CD-ROM. O’Hare, A.T., 2009, Proposed portland cement NESHAP—A cure worse than

the disease?: World Cement, v. 41, no. 3, March, p. 27–32. Portland Cement Association, 2011, Construction put in place: Monitor, v. 21,

no. 2, February, p. 10. Sullivan, Ed, 2010, There is light at the end of the tunnel—It’s just a really long

tunnel: World Cement, v. 41, no. 3, March, p. 22–26. Texas Industries, 2009, TXI reports second quarter results and announces delay

of central Texas cement plant expansion: Dallas, TX, Texas Industries, Inc. press release, January 8, 6 p. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2009a, 40 CFR Parts 60 and 63—

National emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants from the portland cement industry (Proposed rule): Federal Register, May 6, v. 74, no. 86, p. 21136–21192.16.6 [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2009 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2009b, 40 CFR Part 98—Mandatory

greenhouse gas reporting (Final rule): Federal Register, October 30, v. 74, no. 209, p. 56374–56519. van Oss, H.G., 2005, Background facts and issues concerning cement and

cement data: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2005–1152, 88 p. (Accessed January 2, 2010, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1152/).


### GENERAL SOURCES OF INFORMATION U.S. Geological Survey Publications Cement. Ch. in Mineral Commodity Summaries, annual. Cement. Mineral Industry Surveys, monthly.

Other American Coal Ash Association, annual survey. Cement. Ch. in Mineral Facts and Problems, U.S. Bureau of

Mines Bulletin 675, 1985. Cement Americas, bimonthly. Concrete Products, monthly. European Cement Association, The. Global Cement Magazine, monthly. International Cement Review, monthly. North American Cement Directory, Cement Americas, annual. Portland Cement Association:

Monitor, The, monthly. North American Cement Industry Annual Yearbook. U.S. and Canadian Portland Cement Industry, Plant Information Summary, annual. Rock Products, monthly. Slag Cement Association, annual survey. World Cement, monthly.

TABLE 1 SALIENT CEMENT STATISTICS FOR THE UNITED STATES 1, 2

(Thousand metric tons unless otherwise specified)

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Production:

Cement 3 99,319 98,167 95,464 86,310 63,929 Clinker 87,405 88,555 86,130 78,382 56,116 Shipments from mills and terminals: 3, 4, 5

Quantity 128,000 127,000 114,000 96,700 71,100 Value 6 (thousands dollars) 11,700,000 12,900,000 11,900, 000 9,990,000 7,020,000 Average value 6 (dollars per metric ton) 91.00 101.50 104.00 103.50 99.00 Stocks, yearend:

Cement 7,450 9,380 8,890 8,360 6,080 Clinker 3,520 5,370 6,550 7,070 5,130 Exports 766 723 7 886 7 823 884 Imports: 8

Cement 30,403 32,141 21,496 10,744 6,211 Clinker 2,858 3,425 972 621 556

Total 9 33,261 35,566 22,468 11,365 6,767 Consumption, apparent 10 128,250 127,660 116,550 96,760 71,530 World production e, 11 2,350,000 2,610,000 2,810,000 2,850,000 r 3,040,000

e Estimated. r Revised.
1 Unless otherwise indicated, data are for portland (including blended) and masonry cements only. Even where presented unrounded, data are thought to be accurate to no more than three significant digits.
2 Excludes Puerto Rico.
3 Includes cement made from imported clinker.
4 Includes imported cement.
5 Shipments to final domestic customers. Data are from an annual survey of plants and terminals and may differ from the totals in table 9, which are based on consolidated monthly surveys from companies.
6 Value free on board mill or independently reporting terminal.
7 Official export data have been corrected to remove an apparent excess of aluminous cement from Laredo, TX, of 943,939 metric to ns in 2006 and 653,255 metric tons in 2007.
8 All forms of hydraulic cement or clinker.
9 Data may not add to totals shown because of independent rounding.
10 Production (including that from imported clinker) of cement plus imports of hydraulic cement minus exports of hydraulic cement minus the change in yearend cement stocks.
11 Total hydraulic cement. May include clinker exports for some countries.CEMENT—2009 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 16.7 TABLE 2 COUNTY BASIS OF SUBDIVISION OF STATES IN CEMENT TABLES

State subdivision Defining counties California, northern Alpine, Fresno, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Monterey, Tulare, Tuolumne, and all counties farther north. California, southern Inyo, Kern, Mono, San Luis Obispo, and all counties farther south. Illinois, metropolitan Chicago Cook, DuPage, Kane, Kendall, Lake, McHenry, and Will Counties in Illinois. Illinois, excluding Chicago All counties other than those in metropolitan Chicago. New York, eastern Delaware, Franklin, Hamilton, Herkimer, Otsego, and all counties farther east and south, except those within Metropolitan New York. New York, western Broome, Chenango, Lewis, Madison, Oneida, St. Lawrence, and all counties farther west. New York, metropolitan New York City (Bronx, Kings, New York, Queens, and Richmond), Nassau, Rockland, Suffolk, and Westchester. Pennsylvania, eastern Adams, Cumberland, Juniata, Lycoming, Mifflin, Perry, Tioga, Union, and all counties farther east. Pennsylvania, western Centre, Clinton, Franklin, Huntingdon, Potter, and all counties farther west. Texas, northern Angelina, Bell, Concho, Crane, Culberson, El Paso, Falls, Houston, Hudspeth, Irion, Lampasas, Leon, Limestone, McCulloch, Reagan, Reeves, Sabine, San Augustine, San Saba, Tom Green, Trinity, Upton, Ward, and all counties farther north. Texas, southern Brazos, Burnet, Crockett, Jasper, Jeff Davis, Llano, Madison, Mason, Menard, Milam, Newton, Pecos, Polk, Robertson, San Jacinto, Schleicher, Tyler, Walker, Williamson, and all counties farther south.16.8 [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2009TABLE 3PORTLAND AND BLENDED CEMENT PRODUCTION, CAPACITY, AND STOCKS IN THE UNITED STATES, BY DISTRICT1(Thousand metric tons unless otherwise specified)20082009Number Grinding Percentage Yearend Number Grinding Percentage YearendDistrict2of plants Productioncapacity3utilized4stocks5of plants Productioncapacity3utilized4stocks5Maine and New York 5 3,061 4,204 72.8 23465 2,118 4,341 48.8 2196Pennsylvania, eastern 7 3,826 5,140674.5 285 7 3,064 5,420656.5 247Pennsylvania, western 3 1,327 1,805 73.5 140 3 678 1,805 37.6 103Illinois 4 2,655 3,390 78.3 268 3 1,487 3,390 43.9 237Indiana 4 2,587 3,653 70.8 237 4 2,685 3,740671.7 188Michigan 5 4,928 7,332 67.2 287 5 3,548 6,983 50.8 163Ohio 2 762 1,166 65.4 64 2 550 1,166 47.2 25Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota 5 3,987 5,840668.3 458 5 2,991 5,840651.2 266Kansas 4 2,396 3,230674.2 247 3 1,669 2,940656.8 166Missouri 5 4,651 7,230 64.3 532 6 4,418 13,035 33.9 622Florida77 4,979 7,301 68.2 38967 3,145 7,610641.3 260Georgia, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia7 5,057 6,780674.6 59566 3,859 7,180653.7 334South Carolina 3 2,925 5,085 57.5 13763 1,868 5,085 36.7 77Alabama 5 4,635 7,074 65.5 242 5 3,416 7,292 46.8 2316Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee 4 3,045 3,702 82.3 282 4 1,958 3,702 52.9 147Arkansas and Oklahoma 4 2,623 3,130683.9 198 4 2,067 3,127 66.1 182Texas, northern 6 6,303 7,618 82.7 1,324 6 3,833 7,580650.5 609Texas, southern 6 4,778 6,330675.5 26066 4,519 6,505 69.5 2266Arizona and New Mexico 3 2,097 3,116 67.3 102 3 1,464 3,116 47.0 91Colorado and Wyoming 4 2,610 4,449 58.7 173 4 2,165 4,517 47.9 149Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah 6 2,727 3,728 73.1 22166 2,050 3,728 55.0 156Alaska and Hawaii -- -- -- -- 82 -- -- -- -- 55California, northern 3 1,678 2,853 58.8 188 W8W8W8W8W8California, southern 8 8,201 10,855 75.6 31061187,153813,6006, 852.784176, 8Oregon and Washington 4 1,443 2,435 59.3 24864 1,254 2,435 51.4 2756Importers9-- -- -- -- 3106-- -- -- -- 1826Total10114 83,283 117,000670.9 7,8106112 61,961 124,000649.9 5,6206Puerto Rico 2 1,301 1,898 68.5 44 2 936 1,780 52.6 476Grand total10116 84,584 119,000670.9 7,8606114 62,897 126,000650.0 5,6706See footnotes at end of table.CEMENT—2009 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 16.9TABLE 3—ContinuedPORTLAND AND BLENDED CEMENT PRODUCTION, CAPACITY, AND STOCKS IN THE UNITED STATES, BY DISTRICT1W Withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data; included in “Total.” -- Zero.1Even where presented unrounded, data are thought to be accurate to no more than three significant digits. Includes data for white cement. Includes cement made from imported clinker.2District assignation is the location of the reporting facilities. Specific districts include importers for which district assignations were possible.3Grinding capacity is based on fineness needed to produce a plant’s normal output mix, including masonry cement, and allowing for downtime for routine maintenance.4Calculated relative to portland cement output; utilization would be higher if calculated to include output of masonry cement.5Includes imported cement. Includes stocks at mills, terminals, and in transit.6Data contain estimates for nonrespondent or incompletely reporting facilities and have been rounded to no more than three significant digits.7Production and capacity data exclude a plant that produced only masonry cement.8Data for Northern California for 2009 are included with those for Southern California.9Data include only those importers or terminals for which district assignations were not possible.10Data may not add to totals shown because of independent rounding.16.10 [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2009 TABLE 4 MASONRY CEMENT PRODUCTION AND STOCKS IN THE UNITED STATES, BY DISTRICT 1

(Thousand metric tons unless otherwise specified)

2008 2009 Number Number of active Yearend of active Yearend District 2 plants Production 3 stocks 4 plants Production 3 stocks 4 Maine and New York 4 69 17 4 41 12 Pennsylvania 9 254 56 9 176 46 Indiana and Ohio 6 332 73 6 244 52 Michigan 4 99 34 4 80 28 Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota 2 W W 2 W W Kansas 2 W W 2 W W Missouri 1 W W 1 W W Florida 5 310 65 6 123 38 Georgia, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia 6 367 53 6 250 42 South Carolina 3 323 31 3 174 16 Alabama 4 303 63 4 208 61 Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee 3 W W 3 W W Arkansas and Oklahoma 4 125 18 3 97 21 Texas 7 274 20 8 202 22 Arizona and New Mexico 3 W W 3 W W Colorado and Wyoming 2 W W 2 W W Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah 1 W W -- W W California, northern 3 59 19 W 5 W 5 W 5 California, southern 5 278 23 7 236 45 6 Importers 7 -- -- 3 6 -- -- 3 6

Total 8 74 3,027 549 6 73 1,968 456 6 W Withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data; included in “Total.” -- Zero.
1 Includes masonry, portland-lime, plastic, and stucco cements. Even where presented unrounded, data are thought to be accurate t o no more than three significant digits.
2 District assignation is the location of the reporting facilities. Specific districts include importers for which district assig nations were possible.
3 Includes cement produced from imported clinker.
4 Includes imported cement.
5 Data for 2009 for Northern California is included with those for Southern California.
6 Data contain estimates for nonrespondent or incompletely reporting facilities.
7 Data include only those importers or terminals for which district assignations were not possible.
8 Data may not add totals shown because of independent rounding.CEMENT—2009 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 16.11TABLE 5CLINKER CAPACITY AND PRODUCTION IN THE UNITED STATES IN2009, BY DISTRICT1Daily Average Apparent annual YearendNumber of active plants2capacity4, 5days ofcapacity4, 7Production Percentage stocksProcess used Number (thousand routine (thousand (thousand of capacity (thousandDistrict Wet DryBoth3Totalof kilns4metric tons)maintenance6metric tons) metric tons) utilized metric tons)Maine and New York 2 2 -- 4 5 11.3 26.8 3,817 1,856 48.6 100Pennsylvania 3 5 1 9 18 22.8 13.988,00083,523 44.2 271Illinois -- 3 -- 3 6 7.7 7.5 2,728 1,311 48.1 1348Indiana 1 39-- 4 8 10.2 25.8 3,430 2,578 75.2 198Michigan 1 2 -- 3 8 14.1 18.6 4,796 2,587 53.9 132Ohio 1 1 -- 2 3 3.3 25.8 1,159 467 40.3 23Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota -- 4 1 5 9 14.1 17.984,85082,614 53.9 230Kansas 1 2 -- 3 5 8.2 18.5 2,746 1,682 61.3 63Missouri 1 5 -- 6 8 36.3 25.6812,40084,123 33.3 434Florida -- 7 -- 7 8 23.8 18.188,35082,984 35.7 338Georgia, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia -- 4 1 5 8 22.1 19.387,57083,611 47.7 261South Carolina -- 3 -- 3 3 12.3 26.6 4,185 1,770 42.3 325Alabama -- 5 -- 5 5 16.9 31.0 5,67083,240 57.1 196Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee 1 3 -- 4 4 10.5 17.5 3,635 1,773 48.8 47Arkansas and Oklahoma 2 2 -- 4 10 8.1 20.5 2,796 1,775 63.5 66Texas, northern 2 410--106 12 19.0 18.6 6,586 3,480 52.8 649Texas, southern -- 5 -- 5 6 16.2 15.7 5,648 4,128 73.1 366Arizona and New Mexico -- 3 -- 3 7 8.6 11.6 3,022 1,125 37.2 136Colorado and Wyoming -- 4 -- 4 5 11.5 26.8 3,907 1,992 51.0 228Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah 3 3 -- 6 8 8.5 20.3 2,876 1,671 58.1 1548California -- 9 -- 9 11 40.4 26.0 13,667 6,612 48.4 717Oregon and Washington 1 2 -- 3 3 6.0 34.4 2,019 1,213 60.1 64Total1119 81 3 103 160 332.1 20.18114,000856,116 49.3 5,1308Puerto Rico -- 2 -- 2 2 5.3 42.5 1,731 802 46.3 75Grand total1119 83 3 105 162 337.4 20.48116,000856,918 49.3 5,2108See footnotes at end of table.16.12 [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2009TABLE 5—ContinuedCLINKER CAPACITY AND PRODUCTION IN THE UNITED STATES IN2009, BY DISTRICT1-- Zero.1Even where presented unrounded, data are thought to be accurate to no more than three significant digits.2Includes white cement plants. Includes all plants that produced clinker for at least one day during the year.3Plants that can operate both wet and dry kilns, whether or not both types were active during the year.4Includes kilns active for at least one day during the year. For kilns idle all year, excludes those that cannot be restarted, fully permitted, in less than 6 months.5Sum of reported kiln capacities for each plant in a district.6Total days of routine maintenance (summed for all kilns) divided by the number of kilns.7Sum of apparent annual capacities for each kiln. For each kiln, the statistic is calculated as 366 days (leap year) minus daysreported for routine maintenance and then multiplied by the unrounded daily capacity.8Data contain estimates for nonrespondents and incompletely reporting facilities and have been rounded to no more than three significant digits.9Includes one semiwet kiln.10Includes as a dry operation one plant, formerly operating both wet and dry kilns, whose wet kilns were idle all year (2009) andwhich, in 2010, were declared permanently closed.11Data may not add to totals shown because of independent rounding.CEMENT—2009 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 16.13 TABLE 6 RAW MATERIALS USED TO PRODUCE CLINKER AND CEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 1, 2

(Thousand metric tons)

2008 2009 Materials Clinker Cement 3 Clinker Cement 3 Calcareous:

Limestone (aragonite, chalk, coral, marble) 101,000 1,920 73,600 1,510 Cement rock (includes marl) 10,900 50 6,560 -- Cement kiln dust (CKD) 4 425 304 288 156 Lime 4 248 15 17 5 Other 41 -- 62 -- Aluminous:

Clay 3,780 -- 2,500 3 Shale and schist 3,290 20 2,540 -- Other 5 849 -- 438 -- Ferrous:

Iron ore 609 -- 481 -- Mill scale 702 -- 536 -- Other 6 65 -- 40 -- Siliceous:

Sand, calcium silicates 3,970 -- 2,550 -- Sandstone, quartzite, soils, nonpozzolanic rocks 693 -- 464 -- Fly ash 2,710 r 95 r 2,290 74 Other ash, including bottom ash 948 -- 706 -- Granulated blast furnace slag 7 81 328 44 192 Other blast furnace slag 262 -- 99 -- Steel slag 428 -- 169 -- Other slag 67 30 38 -- Natural rock pozzolans 8 -- 9 -- 11 Other pozzolans 9 79 3 45 3 Other:

Gypsum and anhydrite -- 4,620 r -- 3,367 Other 10 115 90 79 57 Total 11 131,000 7,480 r 93,600 5,380 Clinker, imported, raw materials equivalent 12 -- 1,810 -- 1,250

Grand total 11 131,000 9,290 r 93,600 6,630

r Revised. -- Zero.
1 Excludes Puerto Rico.
2 Data have been rounded to three significant digits to reflect inherent reporting accuracy and the incorporation of estimates fo r some facilities.
3 Includes portland, blended, and masonry cements.
4 Data are probably underreported.
5 Includes alumina, aluminum dross, bauxite, spent catalysts, and other aluminous materials.
6 Includes iron sludges, pyrite, and other ferrous materials.
7 Includes both ground (GGBFS) and unground material.
8 Includes pozzolana and burned clays or shales (except where directly reported as clay or shale).
9 Includes diatomite, silica fume, other microcrystalline silica, and other pozzolans, even if not used as such.
10 Includes fluorspar and all other materials not listed earlier.
11 Data may not add to totals shown because of independent rounding.
12 Converted as the weight of foreign clinker consumed times 1.7.16.14 [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2009TABLE 7CLINKER PRODUCED AND FUEL CONSUMED BY THE U.S. CEMENT INDUSTRY, BY KILN PROCESS1Clinker production2Conventional fuels3Waste fuels3QuantityCoal4PetcokeOil5Natural gas6Tires Solid LiquidNumber (thousand Percentage (thousand (thousand (thousand (thousand (thousand (thousand (thousandKiln process of plants metric tons) of total metric tons) metric tons) liters) cubic meters) metric tons) metric tons) liters)2008:Wet 22 9,930 12.7 1,230 518 24,300 23,200 91 10 370,000Dry 81 64,664 82.5 6,440 1,610 28,000 218,000 341 335 354,000Both73 3,788 4.8 561 -- -- 38,900 6 9 67,200Total8106 78,382 100.0 8,240 2,130 52,300 280,000 438 354 791,0002009:Wet 19 4,866 8.7 569 157 7,310 96,200 50 16 256,000Dry981 50,112 89.3 4,690 1,300 26,500 247,000 263 307 493,000Both73 1,138 2.0 186 33 1,810 1,190 -- -- 34,600Total8103 56,116 100.0 5,450 1,490 35,600 344,000 313 324 784,000-- Zero.1Excludes Puerto Rico.2Clinker production data are all reported. Although unrounded, data are thought to be accurate to no more than three significantdigits.3All fuel data have been rounded to no more than three significant digits.4Essentially all reported to be bituminous.5Distilliate and residual fuel oils. Excludes used oils that were reported under liquid wastes.6Includes landfill gas and propane.7Plants that can operate both wet and dry kilns, whether or not both types were active during the year. Includes plants that converted from wet to dry technology during the year.For 2009, excludes one plant as noted in footnote 9.8Data may not add to totals shown because of independent rounding.9Includes one plant that operated a dry kiln in 2009 that had wet kilns which, although technically idle all year, were deemed as closed.CEMENT—2009 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 16.15TABLE 8ELECTRICITY CONSUMED BY U.S. CEMENT PLANTS, BY KILN PROCESS1Electricity consumed2AverageGenerated PurchasedTotal3Cement consumptionQuantity Quantity Quantityproduced4(kilowatthoursNumber (million Number (million Number (million Percentage (thousand per ton ofPlant process of plants kilowatthours) of plants kilowatthours) of plants kilowatthours) of total metric tons) cement produced)2008:Integrated plants:Wet -- -- 22 1,530 22 1,53012.410,598 145Dry 3 236 8359,960 83510,20082.970,279 145Both6-- -- 3 563 3 5634.63,736 151Total or average33 236 108512,100 108512,300100.084,612 145Grinding plants7-- -- 5 130 5 130--1,481 88Exclusions8-- -- 3 XX 3 XX--216 XX2009:Integrated plants:Wet -- -- 19 815 19 8158.85,804 140Dry92 223 8358,000 8358,21088.655,739 148Both6-- -- 3 222 3 2222.41,334 166Total or average32 223 10559,030 10559,260100.062,877 147Grinding plants7-- -- 5 91 6 91--908 99Exclusions8-- -- 3 XX 3 XX--143 XXXX Not applicable. -- Zero.1Excludes Puerto Rico.2Electricity data are rounded to no more than three significant digits because they contain estimates.3Data may not add to totals shown because of independent rounding.4Portland and masonry cement. Data are all reported and are unrounded.5Includes two grinding plants whose data were included with the integrated plants.6Plants that can operate both wet and dry kilns, whether or not both types were active during the year. Includes plants that converted from wet to dry technology during the year. For2009, excludes one plant as noted in footnote 9.7Plants that did not produce clinker but ground clinker from outside sources. Excludes plants that only made masonry cement or just reground one type of portland cement into another,or which also reported a significant component of grinding of excess granulated blast furnace slag.8Plants whose production of portland cement was by simply regrinding of one type into another, or which reported production onlyof masonry cement.9Includes one plant that operated a dry kiln in 2009 that had wet kilns which, although technically idle all year, were deemedas closed.16.16 [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2009 TABLE 9 CEMENT SHIPMENTS TO FINAL CUSTOMER, BY DESTINATION AND ORIGIN 1, 2

(Thousand metric tons)

Portland cement Masonry cement Destination and origin 2008 2009 2008 2009 Destination:

Alabama 1,559 1,140 122 85 Alaska 3 148 146 -- -- Arizona 2,778 1,727 44 26 Arkansas 902 732 49 40 California, northern 3,179 2,133 73 45 California, southern 6,189 4,395 238 170 Colorado 2,156 1,403 14 7 Connecticut 3 640 478 12 11 Delaware 3 217 159 7 5 District of Columbia 3 168 129 (4) (4) Florida 5,875 3,946 351 231 Georgia 3,112 1,887 235 131 Hawaii 3 397 306 4 2 Idaho 507 367 1 (4) Illinois, excluding Chicago 1,656 1,397 13 10 Illinois, metropolitan Chicago 3 1,636 1,181 31 19 Indiana 1,719 1,454 56 39 Iowa 1,658 1,448 2 1 Kansas 1,430 1,133 10 7 Kentucky 1,085 870 68 49 Louisiana 3 2,477 2,135 62 49 Maine 239 185 3 2 Maryland 1,223 902 59 42 Massachusetts 3 919 702 15 11 Michigan 1,858 1,384 59 42 Minnesota 3 1,374 1,135 13 12 Mississippi 1,063 805 59 40 Missouri 2,079 1,728 26 19 Montana 349 256 1 1 Nebraska 1,134 1,018 3 2 Nevada 1,651 1,008 15 12 New Hampshire 3 269 198 4 7 New Jersey 3 1,594 1,152 59 43 New Mexico 709 534 9 7 New York, eastern 573 476 13 10 New York, western 3 748 652 23 16 New York, metropolitan 3 1,637 1,304 73 59 North Carolina 3 2,343 1,612 229 135 North Dakota 3 391 375 1 1 Ohio 2,817 2,232 99 78 Oklahoma 1,570 1,338 54 39 Oregon 923 663 1 (4) Pennsylvania, eastern 1,722 1,270 48 37 Pennsylvania, western 1,082 913 42 33 Rhode Island 3 139 106 2 1 South Carolina 1,242 822 103 70 South Dakota 453 450 1 1 Tennessee 1,692 1,223 164 108 Texas, northern 6,580 4,255 123 79 Texas, southern 7,668 5,344 198 157 Utah 1,313 1,058 (4) (4) See footnotes at end of table.CEMENT—2009 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 16.17 TABLE 9—Continued CEMENT SHIPMENTS TO FINAL CUSTOMER, BY DESTINATION AND ORIGIN 1, 2

(Thousand metric tons)

Portland cement Masonry cement Destination and origin 2008 2009 2008 2009 Destination—Continued:

Vermont 3 116 95 3 2 Virginia 2,019 1,526 118 80 Washington 2,044 1,437 1 1 West Virginia 504 402 21 14 Wisconsin 3 1,729 1,410 13 10 Wyoming 497 348 (4) (4)

Total 5 93,751 68,885 3,047 2,102 Foreign countries 6 564 502 (4) (4) Puerto Rico 1,397 979 -- (4)

Grand total 5 95,710 70,366 3,047 2,102 Origin:

United States 83,178 63,486 2,995 2,070 Foreign countries 7 11,197 5,948 52 32 Puerto Rico 1,335 932 -- --

Total shipments 5 95,710 70,366 3,047 2,102 -- Zero.
1 Includes cement produced from imported clinker and imported cement shipped by domestic producers and importers.
2 Data are developed from consolidated monthly surveys of shipments by companies and may differ from data in tables 1, 10–12, and 14–15, which are from annual surveys of individual plants and importers. Although presented unrounded, data are thought to be accurate to no more than three significant digits.
3 Has no cement plants.
4 Less than 1⁄2 unit.
5 Data may not add to totals shown because of independent rounding.
6 Includes shipments to U.S. possessions and territories.
7 Imported cement sold to final customers in the United States as reported by domestic producers and other importers. Data do not match the imports in tables 17–20.

TABLE 10 SHIPMENTS OF PORTLAND CEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES, BY TYPE OF CARRIER 1, 2

(Thousand metric tons)

Plant to terminal Plant to customer Terminal to customer Total to In bulk In bags 3 In bulk In bags 3 In bulk In bags 3 customers 4 2008:

Railroad 10,700 108 1,870 3 438 2 2,310 Truck 5,350 308 49,000 1,310 39,900 644 90,900 Barge and boat 7,230 3 323 43 37 -- 403

Total 4 23,300 419 51,200 1,360 40,400 647 93,600 5 2009:

Railroad 9,580 8 1,460 2 528 4 2,000 Truck 4,000 116 36,000 1,040 29,400 400 66,900 Barge and boat 7,120 -- 55 -- -- -- 55

Total 4 20,700 125 37,500 1,040 30,000 404 69,000 5 -- Zero.
1 Includes imported cement and cement made from imported clinker. Excludes Puerto Rico.
2 Data are rounded to no more than three significant digits because they contain estimates.
3 Includes packages, bags, and supersacks.
4 Data may not add to totals shown because of independent rounding.
5 Shipments are based on an annual survey of plants and importers; may differ from totals in table 9, which are based on consolidated monthly data.16.18 [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2009 TABLE 11 PORTLAND CEMENT SHIPPED IN THE UNITED STATES, BY DISTRICT 1

2008 2009 Value 2 Value 2 Quantity 3 Average Quantity 3 Average (thousand Total (per (thousand Total (per District 4 metric tons) (thousands) metric ton) metric tons) (thousands) metric ton) Maine and New York 3,820 5 $403,000 5 $105.50 5 2,580 5 $250,000 5 $97.00 5 Pennsylvania, eastern 3,838 382,000 5 99.50 5 2,995 285,000 5 95.00 5 Pennsylvania, western 1,248 121,000 5 97.00 5 949 90,800 5 95.50 5 Illinois 2,810 279,000 5 99.00 5 2,014 191,586 95.11 Indiana 2,346 205,153 87.46 1,951 169,069 86.66 Michigan 4,986 508,000 5 102.00 5 4,114 406,143 98.72 Ohio 733 71,200 97.20 582 55,691 95.69 Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota 4,366 453,124 103.79 3,382 365,298 108.01 Kansas 2,115 217,519 102.85 1,627 166,000 5 102.00 5 Missouri 5,058 490,008 96.89 4,219 414,000 5 98.00 5 Florida 5,763 599,000 5 104.00 5 3,790 5 371,000 5 98.00 5 Georgia, Virginia, West Virginia 2,299 243,026 105.71 4,141 6 367,335 6 88.70 6 Maryland 2,957 240,275 81.25 W 6 W 6 W 6 South Carolina 2,756 267,411 97.02 1,826 165,160 90.46 Alabama 4,444 432,000 5 97.00 5 3,515 315,408 89.72 Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee 2,673 268,412 100.43 1,885 187,660 99.53 Arkansas and Oklahoma 2,643 262,806 99.44 2,300 231,363 100.60 Texas, northern 7,316 733,000 5 100.00 5 4,557 453,000 5 99.50 5 Texas, southern 6,417 645,641 100.61 4,730 452,380 95.65 Arizona and New Mexico 3,106 391,316 125.97 2,173 255,708 117.68 Colorado and Wyoming 2,554 273,303 107.02 1,932 190,508 98.63 Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah 2,589 260,250 100.53 2,063 199,834 96.87 Alaska and Hawaii 497 86,882 174.79 406 66,690 164.27 California, northern 2,481 256,000 5 103.00 5 W 7 W 7 W 7 California, southern 7,540 784,938 104.10 6,835 7 618,000 5, 7 90.50 5, 7 Oregon and Washington 2,196 212,013 96.53 1,651 150,011 90.85 Importers 8 4,060 5 478,000 5 117.50 5 2,747 315,000 5 115.00 5

Total or average 9 93,600 5, 10 9,560,000 5 102.00 5 69,000 5, 10 6,730,000 5 97.50 5 Puerto Rico 1,381 W W 978 5 W W

Grand total 9 95,000 5, 10 W W 69,900 5, 10 W W W Withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data.
1 Includes gray and white portland cement. Includes cement made from imported clinker. Even where presented unrounded, data are t hought to be accurate to no more than three significant digits.
2 Values are mill net or ex-plant (free on board) valuations of total sales to final customers, including sales from plants’ exte rnal distribution terminals. The data are ex-terminal for independently reporting terminals. Data include all varieties of portland cement and bo th bulk and bag shipments. Unless otherwise specified, data are presented unrounded. Unrounded or not, unit value data should be viewed as value indicators, good to no better than the nearest $0.50 or $1.00 per metric ton.
3 Tonnages are those by reporting entities in the district but may include shipments into other districts. They differ from the d ata in table 9, which are the actual reported sales into the specific States.
4 District is the location of the reporting entities, not necessarily the location of sales (see table 9 for sales data, by State ). Specific districts include shipments by importers where district assignations were possible.
5 Data are rounded (unit values to the nearest $0.50) because they include estimates.

6 For 2009, data for Maryland are included with Georgia, Virginia, West Virginia district.
7 For 2009, data for Northern California are included with those for Southern California.
8 Importers for which district assignations were not possible.
9 Data may not add to totals shown because of independent rounding.
10 Shipments are based on an annual survey of plants and importers; may differ from totals in table 9, which are based on consolid ated monthly data.CEMENT—2009 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 16.19 TABLE 12 MASONRY CEMENT SHIPPED IN THE UNITED STATES, BY DISTRICT 1, 2

2008 2009 Value 3 Value 3 Quantity 4 Average Quantity 4 Average (thousand Total (per (thousand Total (per District 5 metric tons) (thousands) metric ton) metric tons) (thousands) metric ton) Maine and New York 82 $10,100 6 $124.50 6 56 $6,265 $112.54 Pennsylvania 241 32,300 6 134.00 6 187 25,300 6 135.00 6 Illinois, Indiana, Ohio 335 47,725 142.55 230 33,900 6 147.50 6 Michigan 136 16,400 6 121.00 6 95 11,538 121.87 Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota 19 2,161 114.53 15 1,921 128.09 Kansas and Missouri 84 13,427 159.64 51 6,353 124.50 Florida 282 42,800 6 151.50 6 192 6 29,100 6 151.50 6 Georgia, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia 320 57,900 6 180.50 6 214 36,547 170.78 South Carolina 305 39,409 129.07 169 21,376 126.43 Alabama 353 44,247 125.38 242 29,735 122.90 Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee 80 11,784 146.57 57 8,360 146.39 Arkansas and Oklahoma 125 15,070 120.65 93 11,100 6 119.00 6 Texas, northern 155 26,100 6 168.00 6 W 7 W 7 W 7 Texas, southern 146 18,300 6 125.50 6 221 7 31,000 7 140.40 7 Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada,

New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming 67 9,259 137.47 42 5,387 129.76 Alaska and Hawaii 3 946 279.55 2 620 289.54 California, northern; Oregon; Washington 51 6,511 128.31 W 8 W 8 W 8 California, southern 279 36,213 129.87 232 6, 8 27,700 6, 8 119.50 6, 8 Importers 9 10 6 1,950 6 196.00 6 6 6 1,220 6 191.50 6

Total or average 10 3,070 6, 11 433,000 6 140.50 6 2,100 6, 11 287,000 6 136.50 6 W Witheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data; included in “Total.”
1 Shipments are those by cement companies to final customers and include imported cement and cement made from imported clinker. Sales are those by cement plants and exclude masonry cement made by portland cement customers from purchased portland cement an d which was then resold and/or consumed. Data exclude Puerto Rico, which did not record any masonry cement sales. Even where presented unrounded , data are thought to be accurate to no more than three significant digits.
2 Data include true masonry, plastic, portland-lime, and stucco cements.
3 Values are mill net or ex-plant (free on board) valuations of total sales to final customers, including sales from plants exter nal distribution terminals. The data are ex-terminal for independently reporting terminals. Data include both bulk and bag shipments. Unless otherwise spec ified, data are presented unrounded. Unrounded or not, unit value data should be viewed as value indicators, good to no better than the nearest $0.50 or even $1.00 per metric ton.
4 Tonnages are those by reporting entities in the district but may include shipments into other districts. They differ from the d ata in table 9, which are the actual reported sales into the specific States.
5 District is the location of the reporting entities, not necessarily the location of sales (see table 9 for sales data, by State ). Specific districts include importers for which district assignations were possible.
6 Data are rounded (unit values to the nearest $0.50) because they include estimates.
7 For 2009, data for Northern Texas are included with those for Southern Texas.
8 For 2009, data for Northern California, Oregon, and Washington are included with those for Southern California.
9 Importers for which district assignations were not possible.
10 Data may not add to totals shown because of independent rounding.
11 Shipments are based on an annual survey of plants and importers; may differ from totals in table 9, which are based on consolid ated monthly data.16.20 [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2009 TABLE 13 AVERAGE MILL NET VALUE OF CEMENT SOLD IN THE UNITED STATES 1, 2

(Dollars per metric ton)

Portland cement Masonry All Year Gray White 3 Total cement cement 2008 101.00 221.50 102.00 141.00 103.50 2009 96.50 211.00 97.50 136.50 99.00
1 Values are average of sales to final customers, free on board the plant or independently reporting terminal. Values include any bagging charges, but exclude delivery charges to customers or to exterminal terminals. Data exclude Puerto Rico.
2 Data are rounded to the nearest $0.50 per metric ton because they contain estimates.
3 Data for white cement include a component of resales showing significant price markups.

TABLE 14 PORTLAND CEMENT SHIPMENTS IN 2009, BY DISTRICT AND TYPE OF CUSTOMER 1

(Thousand metric tons)

Oil well, Ready- Concrete Building mining, Government mixed product material waste and District 2 concrete manufacturers Contractors dealers stabilization other 3 Total 4, 5 Maine and New York 1,930 288 77 220 -- 60 2,580 Pennsylvania, eastern 1,750 739 182 206 -- 115 2,995 Pennsylvania, western 625 159 113 12 7 32 949 Illinois 1,390 182 164 25 164 91 2,014 Indiana 1,480 254 157 42 6 11 1,951 Michigan 3,300 387 309 80 14 29 4,114 Ohio 442 71 58 10 1 -- 582 Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota 2,520 301 418 32 51 62 3,382 Kansas 1,250 173 96 49 38 19 1,627 Missouri 3,080 390 579 56 64 47 4,219 Florida 2,640 783 261 98 -- 6 3,790 Georgia, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia 2,970 702 231 124 5 106 4,141 South Carolina 1,250 297 116 37 3 123 1,826 Alabama 2,460 458 370 111 15 99 3,515 Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee 1,480 220 90 61 23 14 1,885 Arkansas and Oklahoma 1,490 90 530 103 75 16 2,300 Texas, northern 2,870 367 662 114 456 84 4,557 Texas, southern 3,150 441 598 220 315 6 4,730 Arizona and New Mexico 1,680 310 125 38 18 2 2,173 Colorado and Wyoming 1,410 132 170 52 142 28 1,932 Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah 1,440 157 137 70 217 43 2,063 Alaska and Hawaii 317 61 9 18 -- -- 406 California 4,930 1,150 346 306 89 20 6,835 Oregon and Washington 1,280 186 83 73 24 4 1,651 Importers 6 2,020 272 258 54 49 99 2,747

Total 5 49,100 8,570 6,140 2, 210 1,780 1,120 69,000 Puerto Rico 504 91 5 377 -- -- 978

Grand total 5 49,700 8,660 7 6,150 8 2,590 1,780 9 1,120 69,900 -- Zero.
1 Includes imported cement and cement mad e from imported clinker. Excep t for district totals, data ha ve been rounded to three sig nificant digits, but are likely accurate to only two significant digits. District totals are likely accurate to no more than three significant digits.
2 District is the location of the reporting entity, not the location of sales (see table 9 for sales data, by State). Specific di stricts include shipments by importers for which district assignations were possible.
3 Includes shipments to miscellaneous customer types and for which customer types were not specified.
4 District totals are unrounded except in accord with table 11.
5 Data may not add to totals show n because of independent rounding.
6 Shipments by importers for which district assignations were not possible.
7 Grand total shipments to concre te product manufact urers include bric k and block—3,090; precast and prestre ssed—2,330; pipe—929; and other or unspecified—2,300.
8 Grand total shipments to contr actors include airport—156; road paving—2,910; soil cemen t—1,575; and other or unspecified—1,500.
9 Grand total shipments include oil well drilling—1,380; mining—228; and waste stabilization—173.CEMENT—2009 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 16.21 TABLE 15 PORTLAND CEMENT SHIPMENTS IN THE UNITED STATES, BY TYPE OF CEMENT 1, 2, 3

(Thousand metric tons)

Type 4 2008 2009 General use and moderate heat (Types I and II) 5, 6 73,600 55,000 High early strength (Type III) 3,450 2,460 Sulfate resisting (Type V) 5 11,800 8,610 Block 509 167 Oil well 1,470 846 White 7 823 577 Blended: 8

Portland, natural pozzolans 38 34 Portland, ground granulated blast furnace slag 981 580 Portland, fly ash 381 357 Portland, other pozzolans 9 563 325

Total blended 10 1,960 1,300 Expansive and regulated fast setting 36 13 Miscellaneous 11 (12) 27

Grand total 10 93,600 69,000

1 Includes sales of imported cement. Excludes Puerto Rico.
2 Data are rounded to no more than three significant digits.
3 Gray portland-type cements unless otherwise specified.
4 Sold mostly under specifications ASTM C–150, ASTM C–595, and ASTM C–1157.
5 Type II/V and similar sulfate-resisting cement hybrids are included within Type V.
6 Includes ASTM C–1157 general use cements that contain no pozzolans.
7 White or colored portland-type cements. Most are Types I or II but may include Types III and V and block cements.
8 Cements sold under ASTM C–590 and those under ASTM C–1157 that contain pozzolans.
9 Includes blends with cement kiln dust, silica fume, or other pozzolans, and blends containing multiple pozzolans.
10 Data may not add to totals shown because of independent rounding.
11 Includes low heat (Type IV), waterproof, and other portland-type cements.
12 Less than 1⁄2 unit.16.22 [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2009 TABLE 16 U.S. EXPORTS OF HYDRAULIC CEMENT AND CLINKER, BY COUNTRY 1

(Thousand metric tons and thousand dollars)

2008 2009 Country Quantity Value 2 Quantity Value 2 United States:

Angola 1 183 2 323 Anguilla 1 42 4 255 Aruba 1 352 2 336 Bahamas 28 3,853 48 5,628 Barbados 1 153 (3) 61 Belize 1 224 36 1,513 Bermuda 16 1,430 (3) 224 Brazil 1 136 (3) 39 Canada 711 82,814 674 79,836 Cayman Islands 3 293 (3) 95 China 1 354 (3) 133 Colombia 1 675 1 680 Costa Rica 1 89 (3) 19 Dominica -- -- 1 12 Dominican Republic 3 322 2 219 Greece 7 352 15 729 Haiti 10 726 1 62 Hong Kong (3) 98 1 326 Ireland (3) 101 4 225 Jamaica (3) 25 26 2,737 Japan (3) 26 1 225 Mexico 23 4,540 23 5,915 Netherlands Antilles 1 187 1 196 Nicaragua 1 414 (3) 3 Niger 2 114 -- -- Pakistan (3) 3 1 43 Panama 3 413 28 3,794 Peru 1 255 1 198 Russia (3) 8 1 47 Saudi Arabia 1 259 1 844 St. Christopher and Nevis (3) 133 2 102 Sweden 1 90 1 77 Taiwan 1 366 (3) 149 Turks and Caicos Islands 1 267 (3) 55 Other 5 r 3,169 r 5 2,230

Total 4 823 102,466 884 107,330 Puerto Rico:

Anguilla 12 846 -- -- British Virgin Islands 13 1,778 15 1,807 Netherlands Antilles 1 332 (3) 5 Turks and Caicos Islands 8 545 1 152 Other 1 r 131 r (3) 30

Total 4 34 3,631 16 1,994 Grand total 4 858 106,097 900 109,323

r Revised. -- Zero.
1 Includes portland and masonry cements.
2 Free alongside ship value. The value of exports at the U.S. seaport or border point of export is based on the transaction price, including inland freight, insurance, and other charges incurred in placing the merchandise alongside the carrier. The value excludes the cost of loading.
3 Less than 1⁄2 unit.
4 Data may not add to totals shown because of independent rounding.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.CEMENT—2009 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 16.23 TABLE 17 U.S. IMPORTS FOR CONSUMPTION OF HYDRAULIC CEMENT AND CLINKER, BY COUNTRY 1

(Thousand metric tons and thousand dollars)

2008 2009 Value Value Country Quantity Customs 2 C.i.f. 3 Quantity Customs 2 C.i.f. 3 United States:

Algeria 4 316 520 14 1,576 2,123 Brazil 36 2,780 3,225 -- -- -- Canada 4,104 338,225 356,325 3,426 272,829 291,298 China 2,020 103,055 164,401 608 35,251 50,161 Colombia 964 67,117 90,608 654 39,799 56,216 Croatia 34 10,048 13,061 15 5,687 6,890 Denmark 99 9,768 14,898 69 9,924 12,302 Dominican Republic 11 786 1,082 4 307 381 Egypt 57 4,873 7,331 55 6,345 7,965 France 108 22,266 24,999 65 20,373 21,607 Germany 1 464 564 (4) 265 340 Greece 213 11,717 18,514 186 10,705 12,429 India 1 98 153 1 151 209 Japan 6 773 1,038 1 523 654 Korea, Republic of 1,229 50,550 85,899 855 34,694 56,700 Mexico 1,071 84,714 99,673 366 35,342 39,132 Netherlands 4 3,894 4,800 2 1,925 2,539 Norway 20 897 897 -- -- -- Peru 92 4,727 7,509 -- -- -- Sweden 261 13,192 24,583 74 3,821 7,074 Taiwan 855 36,424 55,867 254 11,332 16,677 Thailand 77 5,165 7,909 21 2,594 3,801 Turkey 96 5,257 12,201 95 7,858 12,220 United Kingdom 4 1,712 2,076 1 153 281 Other (4) r 69 r 74 r (4) 138 148

Total 5 11,365 778,888 998,208 6,767 501,592 601,148 Puerto Rico:

China 78 3,270 5,701 (4) 5 7 Colombia 4 529 665 5 674 862 Korea, Republic of 54 3,861 5,812 27 1,350 2,322 Mexico 17 1,981 2,808 14 1,641 2,216 Spain (4) 25 33 81 5,694 7,064 Other (4) 14 r 18 r (4) 169 174

Total 5 153 9,681 15,037 127 9,532 12,645 Grand total 5 11,519 788,569 1,013,244 6,894 511,125 613,793

r Revised. -- Zero.
1 Includes portland, masonry, and other hydraulic cements.
2 Customs value. The price actually paid or payable for merchandise when sold for exportation to the United States, excluding U.S. import duties, freight, insurance, and other charges incurred in bringing the merchandise to the United States.
3 Cost, insurance, and freight. The import value represents the customs value plus insurance, freight, and other delivery charges to the first port of entry.
4 Less than 1⁄2 unit.
5 Data may not add to totals shown because of independent rounding.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.16.24 [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2009 TABLE 18 U.S. IMPORTS FOR CONSUMPTION OF HYDRAULIC CEMENT

AND CLINKER, BY CUSTOMS DISTRICT AND COUNTRY 1

(Thousand metric tons and thousand dollars)

2008 2009 Value Value Customs district and country Quantity Customs 2 C.i.f. 3 Quantity Customs 2 C.i.f. 3 United States:

Anchorage, AK:

Canada 7 419 1,479 9 745 2,267 China 1 98 106 15 1,036 1,561 Japan 5 187 282 -- -- -- Korea, Republic of 102 4,471 8,689 72 3,165 5,658 Taiwan -- -- -- 16 1,047 1,066

Total 4 114 5,175 10,556 112 5,994 10,552 Baltimore, MD:

Germany (5) 13 15 -- -- -- Netherlands (5) 229 259 (5) 42 48 United Kingdom -- -- -- (5) 20 21

Total 4 (5) 242 274 (5) 62 70 Boston, MA, Canada 45 2,537 4,584 77 4,196 6,824 Buffalo, NY:

Canada 707 57,564 60,681 574 48,103 52,028 France (5) 60 61 -- -- -- Germany (5) 3 3 -- -- -- Japan -- -- -- (5) 13 13

Total 4 708 57,627 60,744 574 48,116 52,041 Charleston, SC:

China -- -- -- (5) 5 9 Germany -- -- -- (5) 12 13 Netherlands -- -- -- (5) 41 47

Total 4

-- -- -- (5) 59 70 Chicago, IL:

Croatia (5) 38 53 -- -- -- Denmark (5) 15 16 -- -- -- France (5) 3 25 -- -- -- Germany (5) 2 3 -- -- -- Japan (5) 220 259 (5) 107 117 Netherlands (5) 231 296 (5) 92 141 Poland (5) 41 44 (5) 19 22

Total 4 1 551 696 (5) 218 280 Cleveland, OH:

Canada 485 40,608 41,506 493 34,399 36,894 China (5) 13 17 -- -- -- Croatia 1 261 354 -- -- -- Netherlands (5) 37 57 (5) 137 158 Poland -- -- -- (5) 21 24

Total 4 485 40,919 41,935 494 34,558 37,077 Columbia-Snake, OR-WA

Canada 135 8,012 8,756 55 4,256 4,503 China 653 26,857 44,713 237 13,016 19,757 Thailand (5) 2 4 -- -- --

Total 4 788 34,872 53,473 292 17,272 24,259 See footnotes at end of table.CEMENT—2009 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 16.25 TABLE 18—Continued U.S. IMPORTS FOR CONSUMPTION OF HYDRAULIC CEMENT

AND CLINKER, BY CUSTOMS DISTRICT AND COUNTRY 1

(Thousand metric tons and thousand dollars)

2008 2009 Value Value Customs district and country Quantity Customs 2 C.i.f. 3 Quantity Customs 2 C.i.f. 3 United States—Continued:

Dallas, Fort Worth, TX:

Italy (5) 3 4 -- -- -- Netherlands -- -- -- (5) 34 95

Total 4 (5) 3 4 (5) 34 95 Detroit, MI:

Canada 837 76,193 77,285 841 66,897 68,458 China -- -- -- (5) 41 42 Germany (5) 5 5 -- -- -- Netherlands (5) 260 356 (5) 60 100

Total 4 838 76,457 77,645 841 66,998 68,600 El Paso, TX, Mexico 384 31,680 35,277 275 23,449 25,875 Great Falls, MT:

Canada 9 468 r 503 (5) 20 21 China (5) 24 r 32 (5) 143 171 Germany (5) 13 21 -- -- -- Japan -- -- -- (5) 2 2 United Kingdom -- -- -- (5) 23 33

Total 4 9 505 r 556 (5) 189 227 Honolulu, HI:

China 10 705 1,597 (5) 14 47 Korea, Republic of -- -- -- 84 3,569 7,329 Taiwan 373 16,848 25,388 188 8,281 12,233 Thailand (5) 3 6 3 188 552

Total 4 383 17,556 26,991 276 12,052 20,160 Houston-Galveston, TX:

Algeria 1 94 122 6 728 1,022 China 93 4,219 6,940 2 186 274 Colombia 403 30,692 39,484 235 14,822 20,624 Croatia (5) 11 12 -- -- -- Denmark -- -- -- (5) 3 3 Egypt 22 1,892 2,774 28 3,230 3,988 France (5) 69 79 (5) 44 50 Germany (5) 109 133 (5) 78 93 Korea, Republic of 799 31,413 51,352 472 19,219 30,821 Sweden 108 6,076 8,957 -- -- -- Taiwan 449 16,972 27,229 49 1,968 3,198 Turkey 1 58 89 -- -- --

Total 4 1,876 91,605 137,171 793 40,278 60,074 Laredo, TX, Mexico 133 15,994 16,939 85 11,467 12,646 Los Angeles, CA:

Algeria 2 179 328 -- -- -- China 505 23,241 42,027 21 2,408 2,876 Colombia (5) 28 43 -- -- -- See footnotes at end of table.16.26 [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2009 TABLE 18—Continued U.S. IMPORTS FOR CONSUMPTION OF HYDRAULIC CEMENT

AND CLINKER, BY CUSTOMS DISTRICT AND COUNTRY 1

(Thousand metric tons and thousand dollars)

2008 2009 Value Value Customs district and country Quantity Customs 2 C.i.f. 3 Quantity Customs 2 C.i.f. 3 United States—Continued:

Los Angeles, CA—Continued:

Croatia (5) 109 180 (5) 220 273 Egypt 11 964 1,667 1 68 72 Germany (5) 188 206 (5) 53 72 India -- -- -- (5) 24 25 Japan (5) 36 51 -- -- -- Lithuania (5) 13 13 (5) 26 28 Thailand 19 2,285 3,521 12 1,629 2,202 United Kingdom (5) 12 12 (5) 80 194

Total 4 538 27,055 48,048 35 4,508 5,741 Miami, FL:

Algeria 1 43 70 7 848 1,101 China (5) 23 36 (5) 41 73 Colombia 11 1,464 1,837 6 790 997 Denmark 3 414 529 -- -- -- Egypt 23 1,971 2,811 19 2,197 2,807 Italy (5) 2 2 -- -- -- Mexico 98 9,869 12,580 5 410 590 Sweden 239 10,596 20,770 73 3,270 6,455 Turkey -- -- -- 74 6,618 9,585

Total 4 375 24,382 38,636 185 14,174 21,609 Minneapolis, MN:

Canada 154 17,524 17,541 113 12,105 12,117 China -- -- -- (5) 15 15 Denmark (5) 6 6 -- -- -- United Kingdom (5) 11 11 (5) 15 15

Total 4 154 17,541 17,558 113 12,136 12,148 Mobile, AL, Mexico -- -- -- (5) 7 12 New Orleans, LA:

China 26 5,076 6,461 5 1,062 1,269 Croatia 27 7,929 9,887 15 5,410 6,542 Korea, Republic of 45 1,506 2,412 34 1,273 1,961 Peru 62 3,205 4,652 -- -- -- Taiwan -- -- -- 1 36 180 Turkey 95 5,199 12,112 21 1,240 2,634

Total 4 256 22,915 35,525 75 9,021 12,586 New York, NY:

Colombia 16 777 1,650 (5) 68 116 Croatia (5) 9 11 (5) 57 75 Denmark 38 4,440 6,564 24 2,804 3,655 France -- -- -- 3 107 110 Germany (5) 14 19 (5) 22 23 See footnotes at end of table.CEMENT—2009 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 16.27 TABLE 18—Continued U.S. IMPORTS FOR CONSUMPTION OF HYDRAULIC CEMENT

AND CLINKER, BY CUSTOMS DISTRICT AND COUNTRY 1

(Thousand metric tons and thousand dollars)

2008 2009 Value Value Customs district and country Quantity Customs 2 C.i.f. 3 Quantity Customs 2 C.i.f. 3 United States—Continued:

New York, NY—Continued:

Greece 213 11,717 18,514 186 10,705 12,429 Netherlands (5) 336 398 (5) 79 105 Norway 20 897 897 -- -- -- Portugal -- -- -- (5) 34 35 Sweden 3 1,670 1,856 -- -- -- United Kingdom (5) 41 72 -- -- --

Total 4 291 19,902 29,982 214 13,876 16,550 Nogales, AZ, Mexico 348 21,095 25,919 (5) 9 10 Norfolk, VA:

Canada 113 8,044 8,940 53 5,003 5,373 China (5) 9 11 -- -- -- Egypt -- -- -- 3 389 482 France 108 22,121 24,818 63 20,222 21,447 Germany (5) 14 17 -- -- -- Netherlands (5) 353 464 (5) 34 39 Sweden (5) 79 89 1 551 619 United Kingdom 4 1,647 1,980 -- -- --

Total 4 225 32,267 36,319 120 26,198 27,961 Ogdensburg, NY:

Canada 399 41,749 42,237 248 23,489 23,989 Germany -- -- -- (5) 3 3 South Africa -- -- -- (5) 2 2

Total 4 399 41,749 42,237 248 23,494 23,994 Pembina, ND

Canada 173 10,174 10,293 162 12,370 12,455 France (5) 5 5 -- -- --

Total 4 173 10,179 10,298 162 12,370 12,455 Philadelphia, PA:

Belgium (5) 6 7 (5) 5 5 China (5) 33 33 -- -- -- Germany (5) 104 143 (5) 92 131 Korea, Republic of 137 5,032 11,590 139 4,988 7,063 Netherlands 1 1,275 1,463 1 814 937 Thailand 48 1,629 2,379 -- -- -- United Kingdom -- -- -- (5) 14 17

Total 4 187 8,079 15,616 140 5,913 8,153 Portland, ME, Canada 75 9,765 10,410 37 4,469 4,954 Providence, RI:

Canada 80 4,572 8,488 62 4,069 6,273 See footnotes at end of table.16.28 [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2009 TABLE 18—Continued U.S. IMPORTS FOR CONSUMPTION OF HYDRAULIC CEMENT

AND CLINKER, BY CUSTOMS DISTRICT AND COUNTRY 1

(Thousand metric tons and thousand dollars)

2008 2009 Value Value Customs district and country Quantity Customs 2 C.i.f. 3 Quantity Customs 2 C.i.f. 3 United States—Continued:

Providence, RI—Continued:

Colombia 48 2,502 3,909 -- -- -- Peru 29 1,522 2,857 -- -- --

Total 4 158 8,596 15,253 62 4,069 6,273 San Diego, CA, Taiwan 13 515 517 -- -- -- San Francisco, CA:

China 370 16,786 27,248 211 10,114 13,216 Egypt 1 46 79 1 108 173 France (5) 9 12 -- -- -- India 1 98 153 1 127 184 Netherlands (5) 18 37 -- -- -- Taiwan 20 1,036 1,679 -- -- -- Thailand 9 1,150 1,806 6 777 1,047

Total 4 400 19,143 31,013 219 11,126 14,620 Savannah, GA:

China (5) 10 12 -- -- -- Colombia 258 17,005 23,652 221 12,861 18,609 Egypt -- -- -- 3 354 443 Japan -- -- -- (5) 2 2 Netherlands 1 537 713 (5) 223 364 Portugal -- -- -- (5) 31 31 Thailand 1 96 194 -- -- --

Total 4 259 17,649 24,570 224 13,471 19,450 Seattle, WA:

Canada 757 45,848 48,079 611 42,802 44,572 China 362 25,961 35,167 117 7,158 10,833 Japan 1 331 447 1 398 519 Korea, Republic of 123 6,170 9,308 54 2,480 3,869 Netherlands (5) 188 257 (5) 40 61 Taiwan (5) 1,053 1,055 -- -- --

Total 4 1,243 79,551 94,312 783 52,879 59,853 St. Albans, VT:

Canada 126 14,748 15,543 89 9,904 10,571 Germany -- -- -- (5) 4 4

Total 4 126 14,748 15,543 89 9,907 10,575 St. Louis, MO:

China -- -- -- (5) 11 18 Croatia 6 1,690 2,564 -- -- -- Netherlands (5) 430 500 (5) 329 442

Total 4 6 2,120 3,064 (5) 340 459 See footnotes at end of table.CEMENT—2009 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 16.29 TABLE 18—Continued U.S. IMPORTS FOR CONSUMPTION OF HYDRAULIC CEMENT

AND CLINKER, BY CUSTOMS DISTRICT AND COUNTRY 1

(Thousand metric tons and thousand dollars)

2008 2009 Value Value Customs district and country Quantity Customs 2 C.i.f. 3 Quantity Customs 2 C.i.f. 3 United States—Continued:

Tampa, FL:

Brazil 36 2,780 3,225 -- -- -- Colombia 39 2,103 2,865 58 3,225 4,557 Denmark 58 4,893 7,782 45 7,117 8,644 Korea, Republic of 24 1,958 2,548 -- -- -- Spain (5) 4 4 -- -- -- Sweden 19 847 1,868 -- -- --

Total 4 175 12,584 18,292 103 10,342 13,201 U.S. Virgin Islands:

Colombia 2 213 219 -- -- -- Dominican Republic 11 786 1,082 4 307 381

Total 4 13 998 1,300 4 307 381 Wilmington, NC, Colombia 186 12,333 16,952 134 8,033 11,313 U.S. total 4 11,365 778,888 998,208 6,767 501,592 601,148 Puerto Rico (San Juan): China 78 3,270 5,701 (5) 5 7 Colombia 4 529 665 5 674 862 Dominican Republic -- -- -- (5) 169 174 Korea, Republic of 54 3,861 5,812 27 1,350 2,322 Mexico 17 1,981 2,808 14 1,641 2,216 Peru (5) 14 18 -- -- -- Spain (5) 25 33 81 5,694 7,064

Total 4 153 9,681 15,037 127 9,532 12,645 Grand total 4 11,519 788,569 1,013,244 6,894 511,125 613,793

r Revised. -- Zero.
1 Includes all varieties of hydraulic cement and clicker.
2 Customs value. The price actually paid or payable for merchandise when sold for exportation to the United States, excluding U.S . import duties, freight, insurance, and other charges incurred in bringing the merchandise to the United States.
3 Cost, insurance, and freight. The import value represents the customs value plus insurance, freight, and other delivery charges to the first port of entry.
4 Data may not add to totals shown because of independent rounding.
5 Less than 1⁄2 unit.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.16.30 [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2009 TABLE 19 U.S. IMPORTS FOR CONSUMPTION OF GRAY PORTLAND CEMENT, BY COUNTRY

(Thousand metric tons and thousand dollars)

2008 2009 Value Value Country Quantity Customs 1 C.i.f. 2 Quantity Customs 1 C.i.f. 2 United States:

Brazil 36 2,780 3,225 -- -- -- Canada 3,294 259,073 275,818 2,642 205,197 222,340 China 1,906 81,907 137,987 573 30,463 44,369 Colombia 891 60,180 81,614 636 37,333 52,800 Dominican 11 786 1,082 4 307 381 France (3) 27 34 3 107 110 Greece 213 11,717 18,514 186 10,705 12,429 Japan 5 187 282 (3) 5 5 Korea, Republic of 1,227 50,410 85,539 854 34,641 56,563 Mexico 744 45,002 55,076 185 11,770 13,305 Norway 20 897 897 -- -- -- Peru 92 4,727 7,509 -- -- -- Sweden 257 11,443 22,638 73 3,270 6,455 Taiwan 855 35,371 54,813 254 11,332 16,677 Thailand 48 1,629 2,379 3 188 552 United Kingdom 1 65 96 (3) 46 50 Other (3) r 106 r 126 r (3) 164 269

Total 4, 5 9,599 566,307 747,629 5,414 345,529 426,307 Puerto Rico:

China 78 3,270 5,701 -- -- -- Korea, Republic of 54 3,861 5,812 27 1,350 2,322 Spain (3) 6 8 81 5,694 7,064

Total 4, 5 132 7,137 11,521 108 7,044 9,386 Grand total 4, 5 9,731 573,443 759,150 5,521 352,572 435,693

r Revised. -- Zero.
1 The price actually paid or payable for merchandise when sold for exportation to the United States, excluding U.S. import duties, freight, insurance, and other charges incurred in bringing the merchandise to the United States.
2 Cost, insurance, and freight. The import value represents the customs value plus insurance, freight, and other delivery charges to the first port of entry.
3 Less than 1⁄2 unit.
4 Data may not add to totals shown because of independent rounding.
5 Total imports do not include gray portland cement that was misregistered by importers under the white cement tariff code and which has been included in table 20.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.CEMENT—2009 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 16.31 TABLE 20 U.S. IMPORTS FOR CONSUMPTION OF WHITE CEMENT, BY COUNTRY

(Thousand metric tons and thousand dollars)

2008 2009 Value Value Country Quantity Customs 1 C.i.f. 2, 3 Quantity Customs 1 C.i.f. 2, 3 United States:

Algeria 4 316 520 14 1,576 2,123 Canada 296 40,213 41,086 251 33,932 34,681 China 88 15,869 19,697 29 3,396 4,125 Colombia 58 6,491 8,276 18 2,466 3,415 Denmark 99 9,747 14,875 69 9,921 12,300 Egypt 55 4,724 7,087 53 6,028 7,628 India 1 98 153 1 130 178 Korea, Republic of 2 140 360 2 53 137 Mexico 237 29,222 32,871 113 15,822 17,357 Thailand 29 3,536 5,530 18 2,406 3,249 Turkey 96 5,257 12,201 95 7,858 12,220 United Kingdom -- -- -- 1 99 219 Other (4) r 1,056 r 1,058 r (4) 7 7

Total 5 964 6 116,669 143,715 664 6 83,693 97,638 Puerto Rico:

Colombia 4 529 665 5 674 862 Mexico 17 1,981 2,808 14 1,641 2,216 Other (4) r 14 r 18 r

-- -- --

Total 5 21 2,525 3,491 19 2,315 3,078 Grand total 5 985 6 119,194 147,206 683 6 86,008 100,715

r Revised. -- Zero.
1 Customs value. The price actually paid or payable for merchandise when sold for exportation to the United States, excluding U.S

. import duties, freight, insurance, and other charges incurred in bringing the merchandise to the United States.
2 Cost, insurance, and freight. The import value represents the customs value plus insurance, freight, and other delivery charges to the first port of entry.
3 Values of less than $90.00 (c.i.f.) per metric ton likely indicate the mistaken total or partial inclusion of data for gray por tland or similar cement or clinker. This error happens when the importer records the wrong tariff number with the U.S. Customs Service. Values that exceed $200 per ton likely indicate misidentified specialty cement, not white cement.
4 Less than 1⁄2 unit.
5 Data may not add to totals shown because of independent rounding.
6 Total imports of white cement include substantial quantities of gray cement that were misregistered by importers under the whit e cement tariff code.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.16.32 [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2009 TABLE 21 U.S. IMPORTS FOR CONSUMPTION OF CLINKER, BY COUNTRY 1

(Thousand metric tons and thousand dollars)

2008 2009 Value Value Country Quantity Customs 2 C.i.f. 3 Quantity Customs 2 C.i.f. 3 United States:

Canada 477 35,048 35,310 489 30,192 30,459 China 19 3,414 4,285 3 709 855 Colombia 16 446 718 -- -- -- Egypt 2 149 244 3 318 337 France 107 20,976 23,550 62 19,571 20,732 Other (4) 21 33 -- -- --

Total 5 621 60,054 64,141 556 50,789 52,383 -- Zero.
1 For all types of hydraulic cement.
2 Customs value. The price actually paid or payable for merchandise when sold for exportation to the United States, excluding U.S. import duties, freight, insurance, and other charges incurred in bringing in the merchandise to the United States.
3 Cost, insurance, and freight. The import value represents the customs value plus insurance, freight, and other delivery charges to the first port of entry.
4 Less than 1⁄2 unit.
5 Data may not add to totals shown because of independent rounding.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.CEMENT—2009 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 16.33 Country 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 e Afghanistan e 60 50 50 50 50 Albania 489 525 889 737 r 740 Algeria 12,800 14,702 15,886 17,398 r 18,000 Angola 1,315 1,373 1,400 e 1,780 r 1,800 Argentina 7,595 8,929 9,602 9,703 10,000 Armenia 605 625 722 770 750 Australia e 8,475 r, 3 9,000 9,500 r 9,000 r 8,500 Austria 4,560 4,852 5,203 5,309 4,600 Azerbaijan 1,538 1,622 1,691 r 1,595 r 1,283 3
Bahrain 400 400 400 438 r 800 Bangladesh e 5,100 5,100 5,100 5,000 5,000 Barbados 341 338 294 300 e 300 Belarus 3,131 3,495 3,820 e 4,219 4,350 3 Belgium 7,594 8,192 8,200 e 8,200 e 8,200 Benin e 250 1,489 3 1,550 3 1,500 r 1,500 Bhutan e 170 180 180 180 r 180 Bolivia 1,440 1,636 1,739 1,985 r 2,292 3 Bosnia and Herzegovina 1,026 1,226 1,283 1,406 1,074 3 Brazil 38,705 r 41,895 r 46,551 r 51,970 r 51,748 p, 3
Brunei e 266 3 240 200 240 r 220 Bulgaria 3,618 4,093 4,413 4,903 r 2,662 3
Burkina Faso e 30 30 30 30 30 Burma 4 543 570 608 676 670 3
Cambodia -- -- 87 772 r 774 3
Cameroon e 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Canada 14,179 14,336 15,078 13,672 10,985 3 Chile 3,999 4,112 4,440 4,622 3,876 3 China 1,068,850 1,236,770 1,361,170 1,400,000 r 1,629,000 p, 3 Colombia 9,959 10,038 5 11,068 5 10,456 5 10,000 Congo (Brazzaville) e 100 3 100 100 100 r 100 Congo (Kinshasa) 521 r 519 r 530 r 411 r 444 3 Costa Rica 2,000 r, e 1,900 r 2,300 r 2,500 r 2,500 Côte d’Ivoire e 650 650 650 650 650 Croatia 3,481 3,598 3,587 r 3,637 r 2,800 Cuba 1,567 1,705 1,805 1,707 r 1,700 Cyprus 1,805 1,786 1,873 1,870 e 1,800 Czech Republic 3,978 4,239 4,899 4,710 r 3,637 3 Denmark 2,120 2,115 2,100 e 2,100 e 2,000 Dominican Republic 2,779 3,777 4,100 e 4,000 e 3,000 Ecuador 3,690 4,110 4,420 5,493 r 5,000 Egypt 32,458 36,200 38,400 40,000 e 46,500 El Salvador 1,131 1,311 1,300 e 1,300 e 1,300 Eritrea e 45 45 45 45 45 Estonia 726 849 937 808 326 3 Ethiopia 1,569 1,731 r 1,626 r 1,834 r 2,300 Fiji e 143 3 143 145 143 110 Finland 1,357 1,685 1,743 1,745 1,750 France 21,277 22,540 22,300 e 21,700 18,300 French Guiana e 60 60 60 62 62 Gabon e 260 260 229 3 230 230 Georgia e 450 450 450 450 450 TABLE 22 HYDRAULIC CEMENT: WORLD PRODUCTION, BY COUNTRY 1, 2

(Thousand metric tons)

See footnotes at end of table.16.34 [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2009 Country 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 e Germany 31,009 33,630 33,382 33,581 30,441 3
Ghana e 1,800 r 1,800 r 1,800 r 1,800 r 1,800 Greece 15,166 15,674 16,667 16,500 e 16,000 Guadeloupe e 240 230 230 230 230 Guatemala e 2,400 2,500 2,500 2,500 1,500 Guinea e

-- r

-- r

-- r

-- r

-- Haiti e 300 300 300 300 300 Honduras e 1,384 3 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 Hong Kong e 1,005 3 1,010 1,000 1,000 1,000 Hungary 3,371 3,724 3,552 3,544 3,200 Iceland 132 141 90 e 100 e 100 India e 145,000 160,000 170,000 185,000 r 205,000 Indonesia e 33,917 3 35,000 36,000 36,000 r 40,000 Iran e 32,650 3 35,300 41,000 r 44,400 3 50,000 Iraq e 3,000 3,500 4,500 6,453 r, 3 8,000 Ireland 5,083 4,981 5,000 5,000 e 5,000 Israel 5,093 5,089 5,000 e 4,819 r 4,759 3 Italy 40,284 47,814 47,542 43,030 36,317 3
Jamaica 845 761 592 725 r 700 Japan 69,629 69,942 67,685 62,810 54,800 3 Jordan 4,046 3,967 4,051 4,375 r 5,000 Kazakhstan 3,975 4,880 5,699 5,223 5,000 Kenya 2,123 2,174 2,546 2,829 r 3,320 3 Korea, North e 5,700 6,160 6,130 6,415 r, 3 6,400 Korea, Republic of 51,391 53,971 52,182 r 51,653 r 50,127 3
Kosovo 6 450 450 e 470 590 600 Kuwait e 2,145 3 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,000 Kyrgyzstan 973 r 1,060 r 1,230 r 1,218 r 1,100 Laos e 250 400 400 400 400 Latvia e 280 280 300 310 300 Lebanon 4,600 4,400 4,900 e 5,000 e 5,000 Liberia 144 155 157 94 r 95 Libya 3,621 5,300 e 5,206 5,509 r 6,000 Lithuania 832 1,065 1,105 1,100 e 1,100 Luxembourg e 760 3 800 780 780 780 Macedonia 887 r 924 r 945 r 916 r 909 3 Madagascar e 150 150 270 3 270 240 Malawi 166 188 185 240 e 240 Malaysia 17,860 18,400 e 19,480 19,000 r, e 18,500 Martinique e 220 220 220 220 220 Mauritania 300 e 374 410 446 r 500 Mexico 37,452 40,362 40,670 47,609 35,160 3
Moldova 641 837 800 e 750 e 700 Mongolia 112 141 180 r 269 r 140 Morocco e 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 12,000 Mozambique e 490 600 800 730 830 Nepal e, 4 290 295 300 295 r 300 Netherlands 2,496 2,790 2,700 e 2,700 e 2,700 New Caledonia 119 133 134 e 134 e 130 New Zealand e 1,100 1,120 3 1,100 1,100 1,100 Nicaragua e 530 3 530 530 530 530 See footnotes at end of table. TABLE 22—Continued HYDRAULIC CEMENT: WORLD PRODUCTION, BY COUNTRY 1, 2

(Thousand metric tons)CEMENT—2009 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 16.35 Country 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 e Niger e 59 r 83 r 62 r 42 r 40 Nigeria e 2,700 3,300 4,700 5,000 4,500 Norway 1,613 1,695 1,700 e 1,700 e 1,650 Oman 2,686 3,611 3,880 3,991 r 4,000 Pakistan e 17,000 20,652 3 27,000 r 31,000 r 32,000 Panama e 1,050 3 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 Paraguay e 550 600 600 600 600 Peru 5,107 5,782 6,231 6,922 6,862 3 Philippines 15,494 12,033 13,048 13,369 r 14,865 3 Poland 12,646 14,688 17,120 17,207 15,537 3 Portugal 8,438 8,340 12,631 12,650 r 12,700 Qatar 1,500 1,568 2,500 e 3,500 e 4,150 Réunion e 380 400 400 400 375 Romania 7,032 8,253 10,000 r, e 11,000 r, e 7,800 Russia 48,500 54,700 59,900 53,600 44,300 3
Rwanda 101 103 103 103 r 100 Saudi Arabia 26,064 27,056 30,369 31,823 40,000 Senegal 2,623 2,884 3,152 3,084 r 3,000 Serbia 7 2,276 8 2,565 2,677 2,843 2,232 3
Sierra Leone 172 234 236 254 r 250 Slovakia 3,499 3,593 3,718 4,157 3,011 3
Slovenia 1,114 1,269 1,300 e 1,300 e 1,000 South Africa, sales 9 11,464 12,658 13,651 13,341 11,500 Spain, including Canary Islands 50,347 54,033 54,720 42,088 29,505 3
Sri Lanka e 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 Sudan 331 202 326 370 r, e 1,000 Suriname e 65 65 65 65 65 Sweden 2,709 2,952 2,950 2,900 e 2,950 Switzerland 4,022 4,040 4,000 e 4,000 e 4,000 Syria 4,700 e 4,804 5,104 5,336 5,605 3 Taiwan 19,891 19,294 18,957 17,330 15,918 3 Tajikistan 253 282 313 190 r 190 Tanzania 1,366 1,370 r 1,630 r 1,756 r 1,700 Thailand 37,872 39,408 35,668 31,651 r 31,181 3 Togo e 800 800 800 800 800 Trinidad and Tobago 686 883 1,992 r 958 r 950 Tunisia 6,691 6,932 7,052 7,559 8,000 Turkey 42,787 47,499 49,553 54,027 r 53,973 3
Turkmenistan e 650 800 900 900 900 Uganda e 630 630 650 650 650 Ukraine 12,183 13,732 15,000 14,918 9,496 3
United Arab Emirates e 10,000 r 11,000 r 12,000 r 13,200 r 16,000 United Kingdom 11,216 11,471 r 11,887 r 10,071 r 7,622 3 United States, including Puerto Rico 10 100,903 99,712 96,850 87,610 64,864 3 Uruguay e 620 620 620 620 620 Uzbekistan 5,068 5,700 e 6,500 6,600 e 6,600 Venezuela e 5,800 7,200 9,000 9,000 9,000 Vietnam 30,808 32,690 37,102 r 40,009 r 47,900 Yemen 1,550 1,470 1,728 3,000 e 4,000 Zambia e 435 650 650 700 600 See footnotes at end of table. TABLE 22—Continued HYDRAULIC CEMENT: WORLD PRODUCTION, BY COUNTRY 1, 2

(Thousand metric tons)16.36 [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2009 Country 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 e Zimbabwe e 600 700 400 400 300

Total 2,350,000 2,610, 000 2,810,000 2,850,000 r 3,040,000 TABLE 22—Continued HYDRAULIC CEMENT: WORLD PRODUCTION, BY COUNTRY 1, 2

(Thousand metric tons)

10 Portland and masonry cements only. 4 Data are for fiscal year ending March 31 of the following year.
5 Data for 2006–08 are for gray cement only; white cement output was likely to have been an additional 50,000 to 100,000 tons per year. 6 Not included in Serbia data.
7 Excludes Kosovo data. 1 World totals and estimated data are rounded to no more than three significant digits; may not add to totals shown. Even where p resented unrounded, reported data are thought to be accurate to no more than three significant digits. Data are from a variety of sources, includin g the European Cement Association. e Estimated. p Preliminary. r Revised. -- Zero.

3 Reported figure.

8 Montenegro and Serbia formally declared independence in June 2006 from each other and dissolved their union. Montenegro has no cement plants.
9 Data have been adjusted to remove sales of cementitious materials other than finished cement. Material sales removed (mostly fl y ash and ground granulated blast furnace slag) amounted, in metric tons, to: 2005—1,511,716; 2006—1,599,505; 2007—1,664,304; 2008—1,395,124; an d 2009— 1,200,000 (estimated). 2 Table includes data available through July 23, 2010. Data may include clinker exports for some countries.