# 2010 Minerals Yearbook

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

# LIME [ADVANCE RELEASE]

September 2011LIME—2010 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 43.1 

# L IME
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 hydrationwhere 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 signi fi 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 de fi ne when permits under the New Source Review Prevention of Signi fi 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 re fi neries, as well as lime plants (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2010b). In November, the EPA published GHG BACT guidance, where BACT was de fi 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 modi fi 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 speci fi 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 signi fi 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 re fl 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 signi fi cant gains in 2010, increasing by 1.55 Mt and accounting for 62% of the overall increase in lime consumption. Other market sectors recorded signi fi 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 re fi 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 re fi 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 signi fi 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 bene fi ciation of copper ores to neutralize the acidic effects of pyrite and other iron sul fi 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 unspeci fi 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 speci fi 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 theLIME—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 (H 2 

### SO 5 

### ), 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 clari fi 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 speci fi 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 (SO 2 

### ) 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 SO 2

### 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 (SO 3 

### ) 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 bene fi 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 SO 3

### 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 sul fi 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 sul fi de, and sodium carbonate. The recovered sodium sul fi 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 clari fi 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. CO 2

### 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 re fi 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 CO 2

### to precipitate calcium carbonate.

In road paving, hydrated lime is used in hot mix asphalt to act as an antistripping agent. Stripping is generally de fi 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 stabilization43.4 [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 speci fi 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 speci fi 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 signi fi 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 signi fi 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). Re fl 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 dif fi cult to obtain. Besides production by large commercial lime companies, lime is produced by small-scale manufacturers operating simpleLIME—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 dif fi 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 signi fi 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 signi fi cantly improve air quality by reducing powerplant emissions that contribute to ozone and fi ne particle pollution in other States. Speci fi c to the FGD market, 28 States would be required to reduce annual SO 2

### 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 bene fi 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 signi fi 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 States 3

Number of plants 4 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 dolomite 5 do. 200 200 200 200 200

Grand total:

Quantity do. 21,000 20,200 19,900 15,800 18,300
Value 6 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, apparent 8 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 STATISTICS 1, 2

eEstimated. rRevised. do. Ditto.

7 Source: U.S. Census Bureau.LIME—2010 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 43.7 Hydrated Quicklime 5 Total (thousand (thousand (thousand Value State Plants 3 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.

6Withheld 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 STATE 1, 2

rRevised.

1 Excludes regenerated lime.

2Data 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 industrial 6 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 Value 5

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.

2Data 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 USE 1, 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. 6May include alkalis, calcium carbide and cyanamide, calcium hypochlorite, citric acid, food rRevised.

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 tons 3 and thousand dollars)

2010LIME—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 USE 1, 2

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

Use Quantity4 Value 5 Quantity4 Value 5 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 USE 1, 2

(Thousand metric tons 3 and thousand dollars)

rRevised.

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 2Data 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 ton 2 metric ton short ton 2
Sold and used:

Quicklime 102.00 92.50 102.70 93.20 Hydrate 126.40 114.70 125.00 113.40

Average all types 3 105.00 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 types 3 103.80 94.20 104.30 94.60 TABLE 5
LIME PRICES 1

rRevised.

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

2Unit values in metric and short tons were rounded independently.

3 Includes dead-burned dolomite. 2009 2010

Type Quantity2 Value 3 Quantity2 Value 3
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 TYPE 1

(Metric tons and dollars)

2010

rRevised. -- 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 toLIME—2010 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 43.11 Type Quantity2 Value 3 Quantity2 Value 3
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

rRevised. -- 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 TYPE 1

(Metric tons and dollars)

Country 3 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 e
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 Finland e 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 COUNTRY 1, 2

(Thousand metric tons)43.12 [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2010 Country 3 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 e Hungarye 500 500 500 500 500 Indiae 12,000 12,000 13,000 13,000 14,000 Iran e 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 Mexico e, 4 6,500 6,200 6,000 5,500 5,800 Peru e 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 Spain e, 4 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,200 Sweden e 750 780 750 600 700 Taiwan e 450 470 450 450 450 Thailand e 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. eEstimated. rRevised. QUICKLIME AND HYDRATED LIME, INCLUDING DEAD-BURNED DOLOMITE: WORLD PRODUCTION, BY COUNTRY 1, 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, b ut 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.