2010 Minerals Yearbook

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

LIME [ADVANCE RELEASE]

September 2011
LIME—2010 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 43.1

LIME

By M. Michael Miller

Domestic survey data and tables were prepared by Shonta E. Osborne, statistical assistant, and the world production table 

was prepared by Glenn J. Wallace, international data coordinator.

In 2010, the U.S. economy began a slow recovery from 

the longest recession since the 1930s. Increased consumption 

in steelmaking, chemical and industrial uses, and in fl ue gas 

desulfurization (FGD) led a surprisingly strong recovery in 

domestic lime production. In 2010, lime production increased 

by 2.5 million metric tons (Mt) (about 2.8 million short tons) 

and thus regained a large portion of the 4.1 Mt (4.5 million short 

tons) decrease reported for 2009. Lime sold and used in the 

United States totaled 18.3 Mt with a value of $1.92 billion 

(table 1).

The term lime as used throughout this chapter refers primarily 

to six chemicals produced by the calcination of high-purity 

calcitic or dolomitic limestone followed by hydration 

where necessary. There are two high-calcium forms—highcalcium quicklime (calcium oxide, CaO) and high-calcium 

hydrated lime [calcium hydroxide, Ca(OH)2

]. There are four 

dolomitic forms—dolomitic quicklime (CaO•MgO), dolomitic 

hydrate type N [Ca(OH)2•MgO], dolomitic hydrate type S 

[Ca(OH)2•Mg(OH)2], and refractory dead-burned dolomite 

(CaO•MgO). Lime also can be produced from a variety of 

calcareous materials, such as aragonite, chalk, coral, marble, and 

shell. It also is regenerated (produced as a byproduct) by paper 

mills, carbide plants, and water-treatment plants. Regenerated 

lime, however, is beyond the scope of this report.

Legislation and Government Programs

The lime industry is a signifi cant producer of greenhouse 

gases, primarily in the form of carbon dioxide generated from 

the calcination of limestone and from fuels burned to achieve 

calcination. In May, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) issued a fi nal rule that addresses greenhouse gas (GHG) 

emissions from stationary sources under the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) permitting programs. This fi nal rule sets thresholds 

for GHG emissions that defi ne when permits under the New 

Source Review Prevention of Signifi cant Deterioration (PSD) 

and CAA Title V Operating Permit programs are required for 

new and existing industrial facilities. This fi nal rule “tailors” 

the requirements of these CAA permitting programs to facilities 

responsible for nearly 70% of national GHG emissions from 

stationary sources. Beginning in January 2011, facilities already 

subject to PSD permitting that wish to construct a new facility or 

modify an existing facility with expected GHG emissions above 

75,000 short tons per year (on a carbon dioxide equivalent basis) 

would be subject to GHG permitting requirements under PSD, 

and they would need to determine the best available control 

technology (BACT) for their GHG emissions. This rule would 

apply to the Nation’s largest GHG emitters, such as cement 

plants, powerplants, and refi neries, as well as lime plants (U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 2010b). 

In November, the EPA published GHG BACT guidance, 

where BACT was defi ned as an emissions limitation based 

on the maximum degree of reduction for GHGs that would be 

emitted from any proposed major stationary source or major 

modifi cation of an existing source. In the BACT review, 

permitting agencies must identify available control technologies, 

eliminate those that are technically impractical, rank remaining 

controls based on environmental effectiveness, and evaluate cost 

effectiveness of controls and energy and environmental impacts 

(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2010a). 

Production

Domestic production data for lime were derived by the 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) from a voluntary survey of 

U.S. operations. The survey was sent to primary producers of 

quicklime and hydrate, but in order to avoid double counting, it 

was not sent to independent hydrators that purchase quicklime 

for hydration. Quantity data were collected for 28 specifi c and 

general end uses, and value data were collected by type of 

lime, such as high-calcium or dolomitic. Because value data 

were not collected by end use, value data listed in table 3 were 

determined by calculating the average value per metric ton of 

lime sold or used for each respondent and then multiplying that 

fi gure by the quantity of lime that the respondent reported sold 

or used for each end use. Table 3 lists the total quantity sold 

or used for an end use and the total value of the quicklime and 

hydrate sold or used for that end use calculated as described 

above. A similar methodology using average hydrate values was 

used to calculate the value of hydrate sold and used listed in 

table 4.

In 2010, of the 85 operations that were canvassed, responses 

were received for 75 plants, representing 96% of the total sold 

or used by producers. Production data for the nonrespondents 

were estimated based on prior-year production fi gures and 

other information or were included with data reported for other 

operations.

Lime is a basic chemical that was produced as quicklime in 29 

States and Puerto Rico. During 2010, quicklime was produced at 

76 lime plants, and included 32 plants with collocated hydrating 

plants. Hydrated lime also was produced at 15 standalone 

hydrating facilities, including 3 plants where the kilns had 

been shut down and hydrate was manufactured from quicklime 

produced offsite. These numbers do not necessarily agree with 

the number of plants reported in tables 1 and 2 because, for 

data collection purposes, some company operations have been 

combined at the respondent’s request. In a few States with no 

quicklime production, hydrating plants used quicklime shipped 

from other States. There were also a small number of slurry 

plants where lime was converted to liquid form by the addition 

of water prior to sale; this is sometimes called milk-of-lime. 
43.2 [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2010

In addition to stationary slurry plants, there were mobile hot 

lime slurry production systems designed to slake quicklime or 

slurry hydrated lime to the percent solids required for each job. 

States with production exceeding 2 Mt were, in descending 

order, Missouri and Alabama; States with production between 

1 and 2 Mt were, in descending order, Kentucky, Ohio, Texas, 

Pennsylvania, and Nevada.

Total lime sold or used by domestic producers in 2010 was 

18.3 Mt, an increase of 2.5 Mt or about 16% compared with that 

of 2009. Production included the commercial sale or captive 

consumption (described by the term “used”) of quicklime, 

hydrated lime, and dead-burned refractory dolomite. Data 

were incomplete on production of hydrated lime because some 

producers do not report data on downstream hydrating plants. 

Traditionally, most U.S. lime production sold and used is in 

the form of high-calcium quicklime. In 2010, the production 

of high-calcium quicklime increased by nearly 17% to 13.8 

Mt (15.2 million short tons), and accounted for 75% of total 

production. The production of high-calcium hydrate increased 

by 13%. Production of dolomitic quicklime increased by 15%, 

but production of dolomitic hydrate continued to be adversely 

affected by the depressed housing and construction markets and 

decreased by 8%. Commercial sales increased to 16.9 Mt (18.6 

million short tons), and captive consumption increased to 1.37 

Mt (1.51 million short tons).

In 2010, there were only minor company changes in the U.S. 

lime industry. Chemical Lime Co. (Fort Worth, TX) changed its 

name to Lhoist North America to more closely align its North 

American operations with its parent, the Lhoist Group (Brussels, 

Belgium). Missouri Lime LLC (Bonne Terre, MO) was sold in 

the fall and was in the process of changing its name to Valley 

Minerals LLC. 

Although the lime industry reported signifi cant production 

increases at many plants, a number of the plants idled in 

2009 remained shut down during 2010. These included three 

Lhoist North America plants (Douglas, AZ; Tenmile, ID; and 

Grantsville, UT) and two Carmeuse Lime & Stone plants (South 

Chicago, IL; and Winchester, VA). 

At yearend, the top 10 companies were, in descending order 

of U.S. lime production, Carmeuse, Lhoist, Graymont Ltd., 

Mississippi Lime Co., United States Lime & Minerals, Inc., 

Western Lime Corp., Martin Marietta Magnesia Specialties 

LLC, Southern Lime Co., ArcelorMittal USA Inc., and 

American Crystal Sugar Co. These companies reported 

production from 45 lime plants and 12 separate hydrating plants 

and accounted for nearly 91% of the combined commercial lime 

sales and 88% of total lime production.

Consumption

In 2010, the U.S. economy was recovering from the longest 

recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s, and lime 

consumption refl ected the Nation’s economic recovery—strong 

in some sectors while lagging in others. The approximate 

breakdown of lime consumption by general end-use sectors was 

as follows: 35% for metallurgical uses, 32% for environmental 

uses, 23% for chemical and industrial uses, 9% for construction 

uses, and 1% for refractory dolomite (table 3). These end-use 

data were based on lime sold and used by domestic producers 

and do not include lime imports. Consumption for metallurgical 

uses, which had accounted for 57% of the overall decrease in 

lime consumption in 2009, recorded the most signifi cant gains 

in 2010, increasing by 1.55 Mt and accounting for 62% of the 

overall increase in lime consumption. Other market sectors 

recorded signifi cant but much smaller increases—environmental 

[501,000 metric tons (t)], chemical and industrial (287,000 t), 

and construction (127,000 t).

Commercial sales accounted for 92% of domestic production. 

Captive lime accounted for the remainder of domestic 

production and was used mainly in the production of steel 

in basic oxygen furnaces (BOF), sugar refi ning, magnesia 

production, and refractories. Almost all data on captive lime 

production are withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary 

information. As a result, table 3 lists the total quantity and value 

of lime by end use. End uses with captive production are listed 

in footnote 4 of the table.

In steel refi ning, quicklime is used as a fl ux to remove 

impurities, such as phosphorus, silica, and sulfur. The steel 

industry accounted for 29% of lime sold by domestic lime 

companies and the lime produced and used by ArcelorMittal 

USA from its captive lime plant. In 2009, U.S. steel production 

decreased by 36% (33.2 Mt) compared with that of 2008, and 

raw steel capacity utilization at U.S. steel mills averaged only 

51% for the year. In 2010, demand picked up signifi cantly and 

steel production increased by 38% (22.4 Mt) to 80.6 Mt and raw 

steel capacity utilization averaged 70% (Fenton, 2011; World 

Steel Association, undated). In 2010, lime consumption from 

domestic sources for steelmaking and related uses was 5.3 Mt, 

an increase of 39% compared with that of 2009. 

In nonferrous metallurgy, lime is used in the benefi ciation of 

copper ores to neutralize the acidic effects of pyrite and other 

iron sulfi des and to maintain the proper pH in the fl otation 

process. Lime is used to process alumina and magnesia, 

to extract uranium from gold slimes, to recover nickel by 

precipitation, and to control the pH of the sodium cyanide 

solution used to leach gold and silver from the ore. Gold and 

silver are recovered using heap leaching and by conventional 

milling and subsequent leaching of the slurry. The sodium 

cyanide solution dissolves gold from the ore and forms a stable 

gold-cyanide complex, and the gold can then be separated 

through the use of highly activated carbon. Heap leaching 

involves crushing the ore, mixing it with lime for pH control 

and agglomeration, and stacking the ore in heaps on specially 

prepared pads for treatment with cyanide solution. Lime is used 

to maintain the pH of the cyanide solution at a level between 

10 and 11 to maximize the recovery of precious metals and to 

prevent the creation of hydrogen cyanide. Lime consumption 

data for these various uses (aluminum and bauxite processing, 

concentration of copper and gold ores, and unspecifi ed 

nonferrous uses) are combined to avoid disclosing company 

proprietary data and are reported in table 3 under metallurgical, 

nonferrous metallurgy. In 2010, lime consumption in nonferrous 

metallurgy increased by about 5% to 1.13 Mt, but this was only 

a modest recovery from the 21% decrease recorded in 2009. 

Although specifi c data are not collected on lime consumption 

for copper recovery or for gold recovery, the increase in 

nonferrous lime consumption was likely the result of the 
LIME—2010 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 43.3

increase in gold production of about 7% compared with that of 

2009 (George, 2011). Copper fl otation concentrate production, 

in comparison, decreased by about 4% in 2010. Mine production 

of copper was at its lowest level since 1985 owing to lower ore 

grades and production cutbacks announced following the sharp 

fall in copper prices at yearend 2008 (Edelstein, 2011).

Environmental remediation uses of lime in mining include 

treatment of the tailings that result from the recovery of precious 

metals, such as gold and silver. These tailings may contain 

elevated levels of cyanides, and lime is used to recover cyanides 

in such treatment processes as alkaline chlorination, Caro’s acid 

(H2

SO5), CyanisorbTM, and sulfur dioxide/air.

Lime is used, generally in conjunction with soda ash, for 

softening municipal and plant process water. This precipitation 

process removes bivalent soluble calcium and magnesium 

cations (and to a lesser extent, ferrous iron, manganese, 

strontium, and zinc) that contribute to the hardness of water. 

This process also reduces carbonate alkalinity and total 

dissolved solids. Lime consumption for drinking water treatment 

decreased by about 5% compared with that of 2009.

In sewage treatment, the traditional role of lime is to 

control pH in the sludge digester, which removes dissolved 

and suspended solids that contain phosphates and nitrogen 

compounds. Lime also aids in clarifi cation and in destroying 

harmful bacteria. The leading use in sewage treatment is 

to stabilize the resulting sewage sludge. Sewage sludge 

stabilization, also called biosolids stabilization, reduces odors, 

pathogens, and putrescibility of the solids. Lime stabilization 

involves mixing quicklime with the sludge to raise the 

temperature and pH of the sludge to minimum levels for a 

specifi ed period of time. In 2010, lime consumption for all 

sludge treatment increased by nearly 17% compared with that of 

2009.

In FGD systems serving coal-fi red powerplants, incinerators 

(most are waste-to-energy powerplants), and industrial plants, 

lime is injected into the fl ue gas to remove acidic gases, 

particularly sulfur dioxide (SO2

) and hydrochloric acid (HCl). 

It also may be used to stabilize the resulting sludge before 

disposal. Many FGD systems at utility powerplants are now 

designed to produce byproduct gypsum from the SO2 emissions. 

This byproduct material is suitable for use in manufacturing 

gypsum wallboard, as an additive in portland cement, and as a 

soil amendment in agriculture. Hydrated lime may be used in 

another FGD-related market—to control sulfur trioxide (SO3

) 

emissions from selective catalytic reduction (SCR) systems 

installed at powerplants to control emissions of nitrogen oxides 

(NOx). Utility powerplants were by far the largest consumers 

of lime for FGD and accounted for 92% of the total FGD 

lime market in 2010. Incinerators, industrial boilers, and other 

FGD uses accounted for the remaining 8%. The FGD market 

benefi tted from increased coal consumption for electricity 

generation as a result of the unusually long, hot summer 

experienced in the East and South. In 2010, lime consumption 

in all FGD markets increased by 421,000 t, but most of the 

increase was in the utility powerplants sector. The trend toward 

greater use of hydrated lime to treat SO3

 emissions from SCR 

systems at utility powerplants continued with consumption 

increasing by 39% compared with that of 2009. 

Lime is used by the pulp and paper industry in the basic 

Kraft pulping process where wood chips and an aqueous 

solution (called liquor) of sodium hydroxide and sodium 

sulfi de are heated in a digester. The cooked wood chips (pulp) 

are discharged under pressure along with the spent liquor. The 

pulp is screened, washed, and sent directly either to the paper 

machine or to the bleaching plant. Lime is sometimes used to 

produce calcium hypochlorite bleach for bleaching the paper 

pulp. The spent liquor is processed through a recovery furnace, 

where dissolved organics are burned to recover waste heat, 

sodium sulfi de, and sodium carbonate. The recovered sodium 

sulfi de and sodium carbonate are diluted with water and then 

treated with slaked lime to recausticize the sodium carbonate 

into sodium hydroxide (caustic soda) for reuse. The byproduct 

calcium carbonate is recalcined in a lime kiln to recover lime 

for reuse. The paper industry also uses lime as a coagulant aid 

in the clarifi cation of plant process water. In 2010, consumption 

for pulp and paper production increased by about 4% compared 

with that of 2009.

Lime is used to make precipitated calcium carbonate (PCC), 

a specialty fi ller used in premium-quality coated and uncoated 

papers, paint, and plastics. The most common PCC production 

process used in the United States is the carbonation process. 

CO2

 is bubbled through milk-of-lime to form a precipitate of 

calcium carbonate and water. The reaction conditions determine 

the size and shape of the resulting PCC crystals. Lime used for 

PCC production increased by nearly 7% compared with that of 

2009.

The chemical industry uses lime in the manufacture of alkalis. 

Quicklime is combined with coke to produce calcium carbide, 

which is used to make acetylene and calcium cyanide. Lime is 

used to make calcium hypochlorite, citric acid, petrochemicals, 

and other chemicals.

In sugar refi ning, milk-of-lime is used to raise the pH of the 

product stream, precipitating colloidal impurities. The lime itself 

is then removed by reaction with CO2 to precipitate calcium 

carbonate.

In road paving, hydrated lime is used in hot mix asphalt to 

act as an antistripping agent. Stripping is generally defi ned as a 

loss of adhesion between the aggregate surface and the asphalt 

cement binder in the presence of moisture. Lime also is used 

in cold in-place recycling for the rehabilitation of distressed 

asphalt pavements. Existing asphalt pavement is pulverized 

using a milling machine, and a hot lime slurry is added along 

with asphalt emulsion. The cold recycled mix is placed and 

compacted by conventional paving equipment, which produces 

a smooth base course for the new asphalt surface. In 2010, sales 

of lime for use in asphalt increased for the second year in a row 

and were up by nearly 6% compared with those for 2009, but 

the 297,000 t sold was still 16% below the quantity sold in 2007.

In construction, hydrated lime and quicklime are used 

to stabilize fi ne-grained soils in place of materials that are 

employed as subbases, such as hydraulic clay fi lls or otherwise 

poor-quality clay and silty materials obtained from cuts or 

borrow pits. Lime also is used in base stabilization, which 

includes upgrading the strength and consistency properties of 

aggregates that may be judged unusable or marginal without 

stabilization. Common applications for lime stabilization 
43.4 [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2010

included the construction of airfi elds, building foundations, 

earthen dams, parking areas, and roads. 

Lime sales for soil stabilization tend to be cyclical, especially 

in large market areas, such as Texas. In soil stabilization, 

lime competes with cement, cement kiln dust, fl y ash, and 

other additives (liquid enzymes, for example). Choices made 

by consumers can depend on availability, price, contract 

specifi cations, soil chemistry, and State and Federal funding 

in the case of highway construction projects. In 2010, the soil 

stabilization market continued to be adversely affected by the 

slow recovery from the recession and by reduced highway 

spending at the State level, although some additional Federal 

funding would have been available from the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which was signed into law in 

February 2009. Primarily as a result of increased demand for a 

small number of specifi c projects, lime sold for soil stabilization 

increased to 983,000 t or by 16% compared with that of 2009. 

This was, however, still 30% less than the quantity sold for 

stabilization in 2008 (1.41 Mt) and 36% less than that of 2007 

(1.54 Mt). 

Hydrated lime is used in the traditional building sector 

in mortars, plaster, and stucco. Standard cement mortars 

that include lime exhibit superior workability balanced 

with appropriate compressive strength, as well as low water 

permeability and superior bond strength. Lime is a major 

constituent in exterior and interior plasters and stuccos, 

enhancing the durability, strength, and workability of these 

fi nishes. A small amount of hydrated lime also is used in the 

renovation of old structures built with lime mortars, which was 

standard before the development of portland cement mortars. 

Modern portland cement mortars are incompatible with old lime 

mortars. Hydrated lime also is used to make synthetic hydraulic 

lime, which is produced by blending powdered hydrated lime 

with pulverized pozzolanic or hydraulic materials. 

The U.S. Census Bureau collects data on construction 

spending for residential construction and 16 categories of 

nonresidential construction. Although the annual value of 

residential construction decreased only slightly, the annual value 

of nonresidential construction decreased by 14% compared with 

that of 2009 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). Nearly all lime sold 

for traditional building uses is in the form of hydrate; in 2010, 

sales of hydrated lime for traditional building uses decreased 

by 11% compared with those of 2009. Most of the lime sold 

for building uses was produced at a handful of plants located in 

Nevada, Ohio, Texas, and Wisconsin.

Dead-burned dolomite, also called refractory lime, is used 

as a component in tar-bonded refractory brick or monolithics 

manufactured for use in BOF. Refractory brick also is used in 

the lining of many treatment and casting ladles, in argon oxygen 

decarburization and vacuum oxygen decarburization converters, 

in electric arc furnaces (EAF), and in continuous steel casting. 

Although the data reported in this chapter were rounded to 

one signifi cant fi gure to avoid disclosing company proprietary 

data, the production of dead-burned dolomite increased by 

20% compared with that of 2009. Magnesita Refractories Co. 

(formerly LWB Refractories Co.) at its York, PA, plant and 

Carmeuse at its Millersville, OH, plant were the only signifi cant 

producers. Although dead-burned dolomite is the primary form 

of lime used in refractories, hydrated lime may be used to 

produce silica refractory brick used to line industrial furnaces.

Prices

The average values per ton for the various types of lime are 

listed in table 5. All value data for lime are reported by type of 

lime produced—high-calcium quicklime, high-calcium hydrate, 

dolomitic quicklime, and dolomitic hydrate. To avoid revealing 

company proprietary data, value data for dead-burned dolomite 

are included with the averages for all types.

Lime prices stabilized in 2010 after moderate annual increases 

in recent years and the large increase recorded in 2009. The 

following average values are compared with those of 2009. The 

average value for all types of lime sold increased slightly to 

$104.30 per metric ton ($94.60 per short ton). The average value 

for high-calcium quicklime sold increased by $2.40 per ton to 

$100.60 per ton ($91.30 per short ton). Refl ecting increased 

supplies in the Midwest from plants that were idle all or part of 

2009, the average value for dolomitic quicklime sold decreased 

by nearly 7% to $104.30 per ton ($94.60 per short ton). The 

average value of high-calcium hydrate decreased slightly, while 

the average value of dolomitic hydrate increased slightly. 

Foreign Trade

The United States exported and imported calcined dolomite 

(dolomitic lime), hydrated lime (slaked lime), hydraulic lime, 

and quicklime. Combined exports of lime were 215,000 t 

(237,000 short tons) valued at $36.2 million. About 88% of 

exports went to Canada, with the bulk of the remaining exports 

going to Russia (6%) and Mexico (4%) (table 6). 

Combined imports of lime were 445,000 t (491,000 short 

tons) valued at $61.5 million, with 90% from Canada, 9% from 

Mexico, and 1% from other countries (table 7). Canada was the 

primary import source of high-calcium quicklime and accounted 

for 98% of the total. Imports of dolomitic quicklime came 

almost exclusively from Canada (68%) and Mexico (31%), 

as was the case for hydrated lime Canada (58%) and Mexico 

(40%).

No tariffs are placed on imports of hydraulic lime, quicklime, 

and slaked lime from countries with normal trade relations 

(NTR) with the United States. A 3% ad valorem tariff is placed 

on imports of calcined dolomite from NTR countries.

World Review

There is only limited international trade in lime. Traditionally, 

lime has been a low-value bulk product that could not be 

shipped long distances and compete with lime produced locally. 

Most countries have limestone or dolomite deposits and as a 

result are able to manufacture lime for their own consumption. 

There may be some trade between countries on a regional basis 

where distances are not too great, such as in the European 

Union, or to supply lime products of quality not locally 

available. 

With the exception of some industrialized nations, accurate 

lime production data for individual countries are diffi cult to 

obtain. Besides production by large commercial lime companies, 

lime is produced by small-scale manufacturers operating simple 
LIME—2010 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 43.5

kilns to supply individual villages and by industries producing 

lime for captive consumption. These variations and the 

frequent confusion with limestone data make accurate reporting 

extremely diffi cult and certainly incomplete. In some cases, lime 

sales data have been used to estimate country production fi gures. 

Beginning in 2006, major revisions were made to the estimates 

for China based on new information. Beginning in 2009, major 

revisions were made to estimates for India, based on steel 

production and other market assumptions (table 8).

Outlook

Although insulated from some of the effects of economic 

downturns by having diverse markets, the U.S. lime industry 

experienced lost sales in most markets owing to the severity of 

the 2008–09 recession. Steelmaking remains the leading market 

for lime, and the slowly recovering economy has seen a rebound 

in domestic steel production, but it still is signifi cantly below 

prerecession levels. U.S. steel production is expected to exhibit 

a modest increase in 2011, with greater growth expected in 

2012. Lime sales for steelmaking are expected to follow suit.

FGD is the second leading end-use market for lime. With the 

economy recovering, albeit slowly, electric power generation 

rates are expected to increase, and lime consumption for FGD 

also is expected to increase. Long-term growth is still expected 

in the FGD and related markets as a result of EPA’s replacing 

the clean air interstate rule (CAIR). CAIR was vacated in July 

2008 by the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia Court 

of Appeals but was revived when the court agreed with the 

EPA that the effect of vacating the CAIR was detrimental to 

the environment. The EPA was instructed, however, to revise 

or replace the CAIR in order to fi x major fl aws. In July 2010, 

the EPA proposed a rule known as the clean air transport 

rule (CATR) that would require 31 States and the District of 

Columbia to signifi cantly improve air quality by reducing 

powerplant emissions that contribute to ozone and fi ne particle 

pollution in other States. Specifi c to the FGD market, 28 States 

would be required to reduce annual SO2

 and NOx emissions. 

The fi nal rule was expected in midyear 2011 and would go into 

effect 1 year after passage of the fi nal rule, although a delay 

to allow utilities more time to comply was being proposed by 

industry. 

The CATR may have mixed results with respect to lime 

consumption for FGD. Utilities may install additional FGD 

controls but also may choose to switch fuels from coal to 

cleaner burning natural gas and to retire older plants and replace 

them with natural-gas-fi red plants. Fuel switching makes 

economic sense, especially if natural gas prices stay within a 

range of $4 to $7 per million British thermal units (Btu). By 

comparison, coal prices in 2010 suggested an estimated coal 

cost for powerplants of $4.75 per million Btu. There is already 

evidence of a shift from the use of coal to natural gas in the 

utility market. In 2010, coal accounted for an estimated 47% 

of electricity generated compared with 51% in 2005. In 2010, 

natural gas’ share was an estimated 23% compared with 17% in 

2005 (Zhou, 2010). 

The nonferrous metallurgy market for lime is expected to 

benefi t from increased U.S. mine production of copper in 2011, 

following restoration of production at curtailed operations.

References Cited

Edelstein, D.L., 2011, Copper in December 2010: U.S. Geological Survey 

Mineral Industry Surveys, May, 13 p. (Accessed May 12, 2011, at http://

minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/copper/mis-201012-coppe.pdf.)

Fenton, M.D., 2011, Iron and steel scrap in December 2010: U.S. Geological 

Survey Mineral Industry Surveys, March, 14 p. (Accessed May 12, 2011, at 

http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/iron_&_steel_scrap/

 mis-201012-fescr.pdf.) 

George, M.W., 2011, Gold in December 2010: U.S. Geological Survey Mineral 

Industry Surveys, March, 5 p. (Accessed May 12, 2011, at http://

 minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/gold/mis-201012-gold.pdf.)

U.S. Census Bureau, 2011, Annual value of construction put in place 2002–

2010: U.S. Census Bureau, April 1, 2 p. (Accessed May 11, 2010, at http://

www.census.gov/const/C30/total.pdf.)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2010a, Clean Air Act permitting for 

greenhouse gases—Guidance and technical information: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, November 10. (Accessed June 9, 2011, at http://

 www.epa.gov/nsr/ghgdocs/ghgpermittingtoolsfs.pdf.)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2010b, Prevention of signifi cant 

deterioration and title V greenhouse gas tailoring rule—Final rule: Federal 

Register, v. 75, no. 106, June 3, p. 31514–31608.

World Steel Association, [undated], Search statistics archive: Brussels, Belgium. 

(Accessed May 12, 2011, at http://www.worldsteel.org/?action=stats_search.)

Zhou, Moming, 2010, Natural gas erodes coal’s share at power plants—Energy 

markets: Bloomberg Businessweek, September 21. (Accessed 

 September 21, 2010, at http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-09-16/

natural-gas-erodes-coal-s-share-at-power-plants-energy-markets.html.) 

GENERAL SOURCES OF INFORMATION

U.S. Geological Survey Publications

2008 Directory of Lime Plants in the United States. Mineral 

Industry Surveys, 2009.

Historical Statistics for Mineral and Material Commodities in 

the United States. Data Series 140.

Lime. Ch. in Mineral Commodity Summaries, annual.

Lime in the United States—1950 to 2001. Mineral Industry 

Surveys, 2002.

Lime Kiln Dust as a Potential Raw Material in Portland Cement 

Manufacturing. Open-File Report 2004–1336, 2004.

Limestone and Dolomite. Ch. in United States Mineral 

Resources, Professional Paper 820, 1973.

Other

Chemical Economics Handbook. SRI International.

Chemistry and Technology of Lime and Limestone. John Wiley 

& Sons, Inc., 1980.

Industrial Minerals, monthly.

Industrial Minerals and Rocks (7th ed.). Society for Mining, 

Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc., 2006.

Lime. Ch. in Mineral Facts and Problems, U.S. Bureau of Mines 

Bulletin 675, 1985.

Lime and Limestone—Chemistry and Technology, Production 

and Uses. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH, 1998.

Lime Facts. National Lime Association, 1999.

ZKG International, monthly.
43.6 [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2010

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

United States3

Number of plants4 91 89 90 81 r 85

Sold or used by producers:

Quicklime:

High-calcium thousand metric tons 15,000 14,700 14,900 11,800 13,800

Dolomitic do. 2,950 2,700 2,310 1,830 2,110

Total do. 18,000 17,400 17,200 13,600 r 15,900

Hydrated lime:

High-calcium do. 2,370 2,240 2,070 1,690 1,910

Dolomitic do. 409 352 358 261 239

Total do. 2,780 2,590 2,420 1,950 2,150

Dead-burned dolomite5 do. 200 200 200 200 200

Grand total:

Quantity do. 21,000 20,200 19,900 15,800 18,300

Value6 thousand dollars 1,700,000 1,760,000 1,840,000 1,660,000 1,920,000

Average value dollars per metric ton 81.20 87.10 92.40 105.02 105.35

Lime sold by producers:

Quicklime thousand metric tons 16,600 16,100 16,000 12,600 14,700

Hydrated lime do. 2,780 2,590 2,420 1,950 2,140

Total do. 19,400 18,700 18,400 14,500 16,900

Value thousand dollars 1,560,000 1,600,000 1,690,000 1,510,000 1,760,000

Lime used by producers thousand metric tons 1,620 1,530 1,470 1,260 1,370

Value thousand dollars 144,000 155,000 149,000 147,000 r 161,000

Exports:7

Quantity do. 116 144 174 108 215

Value do. 19,200 24,800 27,100 18,500 36,200

Imports for consumption:7

Quantity thousand metric tons 298 375 307 422 445

Value thousand dollars 36,300 49,600 39,400 53,200 61,500

Consumption, apparent8 thousand metric tons 21,200 20,400 20,000 16,100 18,500

World, production do. 285,000 r 296,000 307,000 297,000 r 311,000 e

1

Data are rounded to no more than three significant digits; may not add to totals shown.

2

To convert metric tons to short tons, multiply metric tons by 1.102.

3

Excludes regenerated lime; includes Puerto Rico.

4

Includes most producer-owned hydrating plants not located at lime plants.

5

Data are rounded to no more than one significant digit to avoid disclosing company proprietary data.

6

Selling value, free on board plant.

8

Defined as sold or used plus imports minus exports.

TABLE 1

SALIENT LIME STATISTICS1, 2

e

Estimated. rRevised. do. Ditto.

7

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.
LIME—2010 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 43.7

Hydrated Quicklime5 Total

(thousand (thousand (thousand Value

State Plants3 metric tons)4 metric tons)4 metric tons)4 (thousands)

2009:

Alabama 6 114 1,840 1,960 $226,000 r

Arizona, Colorado, Montana, Nevada,

Utah, Wyoming 13 193 r 2,210 r 2,410 r 246,000 r

California, Idaho, Oregon, Washington 9 48 r 213 r 260 r 38,000 r

Indiana, Missouri 4 371 2,530 r 2,900 r 295,000 r

Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota 3 (6) 298 298 29,500

Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia 6 103 r 2,240 r 2,340 r 208,000 r

Ohio 5 85 1,040 1,130 129,000

Pennsylvania 4 167 818 985 126,000

Texas 5 454 r 590 1,040 105,000

Wisconsin 4 145 606 751 70,000 r

Other7 22 r 233 r 1,470 1,710 184,000

Total 81 r 1,910 13,900 15,800 1,660,000

2010:

Alabama 6 153 2,000 2,150 239,000

Arizona, Colorado, Montana, Nevada,

New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming 14 189 2,330 2,510 274,000

California, Idaho, Oregon, Washington 9 52 212 264 39,700

Indiana, Missouri 5 401 3,140 3,540 361,000

Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota 3 (6) 354 354 35,700

Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia 6 112 2,490 2,600 235,000

Ohio 5 79 1,530 1,610 164,000

Pennsylvania 4 179 926 1,110 145,000

Texas 5 553 730 1,280 136,000

Wisconsin 4 150 716 866 81,200

Other7 24 236 1,740 1,980 215,000

Total 85 2,100 16,200 18,300 1,920,000

3

Includes most producer-owned hydrating plants not located at lime plants.

4

To convert metric tons to short tons, multiply metric tons by 1.102.

5

Includes dead-burned dolomite.

6

Withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data; included in “Quicklime.”

7

Includes Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Oklahoma,

 Puerto Rico, and Virginia.

TABLE 2

LIME SOLD OR USED BY PRODUCERS IN THE UNITED STATES, BY STATE1, 2

r

Revised. 

1

Excludes regenerated lime.

2

Data are rounded to no more than three significant digits; may not add to totals shown.
43.8 [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2010

Use Quantity4 Valuer, 5 Quantity4

Chemical and industrial:

Fertilizer, aglime and fertilizer 52 5,460 52 5,480

Glass 106 11,100 181 19,100

Paper and pulp 814 85,500 843 88,800

Precipitated calcium carbonate 944 99,100 1,010 106,000

Sugar refining 731 r 76,800 671 70,700

Other chemical and industrial6 1,240 130,000 1,420 149,000

Total 3,890 408,000 4,170 440,000

Metallurgical:

Steel and iron:

Basic oxygen furnaces 1,690 r 178,000 2,430 256,000

Electric arc furnaces 2,000 r 210,000 2,670 281,000

Other steel and iron 121 r 12,700 212 22,300

Total 3,810 400,000 5,310 559,000

Nonferrous metallurgy7 1,080 114,000 1,130 119,000

Total metallurgical 4,900 514,000 6,440 679,000

Construction:

Asphalt 281 29,500 297 31,300

Building uses 254 26,700 230 24,200

Soil stabilization 848 89,100 983 104,000

Other construction 39 4,100 39 4,110

Total 1,420 149,000 1,550 163,000

Environmental:

Flue gas desulfurization (FGD):

Utility powerplants 3,110 327,000 3,520 371,000

Incinerators 216 22,700 227 23,900

Industrial boilers and other FGD 64 r 6,720 70 7,380

Total 3,390 r 356,000 3,820 402,000

Sludge treatment:

Sewage 86 9,030 110 11,600

Other, industrial and hazardous 81 8,510 85 8,960

Total 167 17,500 195 20,500

Water treatment:

Acid-mine drainage 82 8,610 90 9,480

Drinking water 963 101,000 911 96,000

Wastewater 630 66,200 649 68,400

Total 1,680 176,000 1,650 174,000

Other environmental 149 r 15,600 226 23,800

Total environmental 5,390 367,000 5,890 620,000

Refractories (dead-burned dolomite) 200 8 18,700 9 200 8 22,500 9

Grand total 15,800 1,660,000 18,300 1,920,000

Value5

5

The U.S. Geological Survey does not collect value data by end use; the values shown are 

derived from average lime values.

TABLE 3

2009

1

Excludes regenerated lime. Includes Puerto Rico.

2

Data are rounded to no more than three significant digits; may not add to totals shown.

3

To convert metric tons to short tons, multiply metric tons by 1.102.

LIME SOLD AND USED BY PRODUCERS IN THE UNITED STATES, BY USE1, 2

(animal or human), oil and grease, oil well drilling, petrochemicals, tanning, and other uses. 

Magnesia is included here to avoid disclosing proprietary data.

7

Includes aluminum and bauxite, magnesium, ore concentration (copper and gold), and other 

nonferrous uses.

8

Data are rounded to no more than one significant digit to avoid disclosing company 

proprietary data.

6

May include alkalis, calcium carbide and cyanamide, calcium hypochlorite, citric acid, food 

r

Revised.

4

Quantity includes lime sold and used, where “used” denotes lime produced for internal 

company use for basic oxygen furnaces, magnesia, paper and pulp, precipitated calcium 

carbonate, refractories, and sugar refining.

(Thousand metric tons3 and thousand dollars)

2010
LIME—2010 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 43.9

value per metric ton of dead-burned dolomite.

TABLE 3—Continued

LIME SOLD AND USED BY PRODUCERS IN THE UNITED STATES, BY USE1, 2

9

Value was derived from an average lime value per metric ton rather than a specific average 

Use Quantity4 Value5 Quantity4 Value5

Chemical and industrial 482 60,900 r 539 67,200

Construction:

Asphalt 251 31,700 262 32,700

Building uses 248 31,300 r 220 27,400

Soil stabilization 310 39,200 r 378 47,100

Other construction 12 1,520 r 10 1,250

Total 821 104,000 r 870 108,000

Environmental:

Flue gas desulfurization (FGD):

Utility powerplants 113 14,300 157 19,600

Incinerators 31 3,920 r 31 3,860

Industrial boilers and other FGD 19 2,400 r 23 2,870

Total 163 20,600 r 211 26,300

Sludge treatment:

Sewage 16 2,020 r 16 1,990

Other sludge treatment 28 3,540 r 30 3,740

Total 44 5,560 r 46 5,730

Water treatment:

Acid-mine drainage 46 5,810 r 45 5,610

Drinking water 138 17,400 r 140 17,500

Wastewater 193 24,400 r 186 23,200

Total 377 47,600 r 371 46,200

Other environmental 38 4,800 r 72 8,970

Metallurgy 30 3,790 r 43 5,360

Grand total 1,950 247,000 r 2,150 268,000

2009 2010

1

Excludes regenerated lime. Includes Puerto Rico.

TABLE 4

HYDRATED LIME SOLD OR USED IN THE UNITED STATES, BY END USE1, 2

(Thousand metric tons3 and thousand dollars)

r

Revised.

5

The U.S. Geological Survey does not collect value data by end use; the values shown 

are derived from an average value per metric ton of hydrated lime.

 for internal company use in building, chemical and industrial, and metallurgical 

2

Data are rounded to no more than three significant digits; may not add to totals 

3

To convert metric tons to short tons, multiply metric tons by 1.102.

4

Quantity includes hydrated lime sold and used, where “used” denotes lime produced

shown.

sectors.
43.10 [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2010

Dollars per Dollars per Dollars per Dollars per

Type metric ton short ton2 metric ton short ton2

Sold and used:

Quicklime 102.00 92.50 102.70 93.20

Hydrate 126.40 114.70 125.00 113.40

Average all types3 105.00 95.30 r 105.40 95.60

Sold:

High-calcium quicklime 98.20 89.10 100.60 91.20

Dolomitic quicklime 111.90 101.50 104.30 94.60

Average quicklime 100.00 90.70 101.00 91.70

High-calcium hydrate 124.60 113.00 122.70 111.30

Dolomitic hydrate 138.20 125.30 139.30 126.60

Average hydrate 126.40 114.70 124.60 113.00

Average all types3 103.80 94.20 104.30 94.60

TABLE 5

LIME PRICES1

r

Revised.

1

Average value per ton, on a free-on-board-plant basis, including cost of containers.

2

Unit values in metric and short tons were rounded independently.

3

Includes dead-burned dolomite.

2009 2010

Type Quantity2 Value3 Quantity2 Value3

Calcined dolomite:

Canada 43,100 7,200,000 57,300 10,000,000

Germany -- -- 1,080 295,000

Colombia 3 2,850 317 108,000

Mexico 267 66,800 34 7,570

Other 100 r 49,000 r 296 136,000

Total 43,400 7,320,000 59,100 10,600,000

Hydraulic lime:

Austria 667 120,000 -- --

Bahamas, The 209 56,900 123 30,100

Canada 4,880 916,000 3,640 757,000

Other 338 r 151,000 r 165 411,000

Total 6,090 1,240,000 3,930 1,200,000

Quicklime:

Canada 34,200 5,610,000 109,000 14,900,000

Costa Rica 477 150,000 662 212,000

Mexico 9,710 1,030,000 8,490 982,000

Russia -- -- 13,400 3,000,000

Other 151 319,000 675 805,000

Total 44,500 7,100,000 132,000 19,900,000

Slaked lime, hydrate:

Angola 18 4,980 884 505,000

Canada 13,600 2,620,000 18,300 3,550,000

Nigeria 449 122,000 304 127,000

Other 42 72,600 373 356,000

Total 14,100 2,820,000 19,900 4,540,000

Grand total 108,000 18,500,000 215,000 36,200,000

TABLE 6

U.S. EXPORTS OF LIME, BY TYPE1

(Metric tons and dollars)

2010

r

Revised. -- Zero.

totals shown.

2

To convert metric tons to short tons, multiply metric tons by 1.102.

3

Declared free alongside ship valuation.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

2009

1

Data are rounded to no more than three significant digits; may not add to 
LIME—2010 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 43.11

Type Quantity2 Value3 Quantity2 Value3

Calcined dolomite:

Canada 7,740 1,200,000 29,600 4,580,000

Mexico 33,000 2,520,000 13,200 4,470,000

Other 8 13,800 409 292,000

Total 40,700 3,730,000 43,200 9,340,000

Hydraulic lime:

Canada 53 10,900 31 3,770

France 181 113,000 240 127,000

Mexico 61 7,520 -- --

Netherlands 72 25,500 -- --

Other 56 27,800 43 23,900

Total 423 185,000 314 155,000

Quicklime:

Canada 322,000 40,100,000 340,000 42,400,000

Colombia 3 371,000 2,010 255,000

Mexico 5,070 553,000 4,680 569,000

Other 1,180 310,000 r 873 482,000

Total 329,000 41,300,000 348,000 43,700,000

Slaked lime, hydrate:

Canada 29,200 3,680,000 31,500 4,250,000

Mexico 22,100 3,210,000 21,700 3,410,000

Other 1,100 1,070,000 909 728,000

Total 52,300 7,960,000 54,000 8,390,000

Grand total 422,000 53,200,000 445,000 61,500,000

r

Revised. -- Zero.

1

Data are rounded to no more than three significant digits; may not add to 

2

To convert metric tons to short tons, multiply metric tons by 1.102.

3

Declared cost, insurance, and freight valuation.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

totals shown.

2009 2010

TABLE 7

U.S. IMPORTS FOR CONSUMPTION OF LIME, BY TYPE1

(Metric tons and dollars)

Country3 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010e

Australiae 1,600 1,600 2,200 2,000 2,000

Austria 465 491 612 507 r 500

Belgiume, 4 2,400 2,400 2,300 2,000 2,000

Bosnia and Herzegovina 218 237 216 281 r 280

Brazile 7,057 5 7,393 5 7,400 7,450 7,700

Bulgaria4 1,409 1,443 1,422 r 950 r 1,000

Canada 2,185 2,134 2,069 1,601 1,910

Chilee 820 r 840 r 820 r 790 r 800

Chinae 160,000 170,000 180,000 185,000 190,000

Croatiae, 4 260 5 572 5 541 r 415 r 415

Czech Republic 1,218 1,277 1,150 r 1,000 r 1,100

Egypte 800 1,000 5 1,000 5 800 r 800

Finlande 430 517 5 482 5 500 475

Francee, 4 4,000 4,000 4,000 3,500 3,500

Germany 7,119 7,218 7,313 5,830 r 6,850

See footnotes at end of table.

TABLE 8

QUICKLIME AND HYDRATED LIME, INCLUDING DEAD-BURNED DOLOMITE: WORLD PRODUCTION, BY COUNTRY1, 2

(Thousand metric tons)
43.12 [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2010

Country3 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010e

Hungarye 500 500 500 500 500

Indiae 12,000 12,000 13,000 13,000 14,000

Irane 2,600 2,600 2,700 2,700 2,700

Israel 158 282 481 429 r 430

Italye, 6 5,900 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000

Jamaica 304 277 313 300 300

Japan, quicklime only 9,014 9,359 9,528 6,746 r 7,200

Kazakhstan 988 r 1,023 r 906 r 798 r 881 5

Korea, Republic of e 3,700 3,900 4,000 3,800 r 3,900

Malaysiae 800 1,300 900 800 900

Mexicoe, 4 6,500 6,200 6,000 5,500 5,800

Perue 216 5 215 215 216 5 216

Poland 1,936 2,143 1,952 1,716 r 1,800

Romaniae 1,942 5 2,000 2,000 1,600 r 2,000

Russiae 8,200 8,200 8,200 7,000 8,000

Saudi Arabiae 360 400 400 400 400

Serbia 377 320 292 r 251 r 280

Slovakia 1,104 1,123 1,082 867 r 900

Sloveniae 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 r 1,500

South Africa, burnt lime sales 1,585 1,599 1,593 1,375 1,286 5

Spaine, 4 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,200

Swedene 750 780 750 600 700

Taiwane 450 470 450 450 450

Thailande 800 800 800 750 750

Tunisia 401 395 369 366 r 370 5

Turkeye, 4 3,800 4,000 4,000 3,800 4,300

United Kingdome 2,000 2,000 1,500 1,500 1,500

United States, including Puerto Rico 21,000 20,200 19,900 15,800 18,300 5

Venezuelae 400 400 400 400 400

Vietnam 1,592 1,438 1,619 r 1,538 r 1,600

Zambiae 160 r 165 r 135 r 130 r 140

Othere 1,610 r 1,590 r 1,660 r 1,600 r 1,610

 Total 285,000 r 296,000 307,000 297,000 r 311,000

data are not reported; available general information is inadequate to formulate reliable estimates of output levels.

(Thousand metric tons)

5

Reported figure.

e

Estimated. rRevised. 

QUICKLIME AND HYDRATED LIME, INCLUDING DEAD-BURNED DOLOMITE: WORLD PRODUCTION, BY COUNTRY1, 2

6

Includes hydraulic lime.

TABLE 8—Continued

1

World totals, U.S. data, and estimated data are rounded to no more than three significant digits; may not add to totals shown.

2

Table includes data available through April 29, 2011.

3

In addition to the countries listed, Argentina, Chad, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Syria, and several other nations produce lime, but output 

data are not reported; available general information is inadequate to formulate reliable estimates of output levels.

4

Production estimate based on sales only; data may be incomplete.