2009 Minerals Yearbook

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

IRON ORE [ADVANCE RELEASE]

June 2011
Iron Ore—2009 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 39.1

Iron Ore

By John D. Jorgenson

Domestic survey data and tables were prepared by Michelle B. Blackwell, statistical assistant, and the world production 

table was prepared by Lisa D. Miller, international data coordinator.

U.S. iron ore production in 2009 was one-half that of 2008; 

consumption during this same period decreased by 40%. World 

iron ore production and consumption once again rose in 2009, 

but by only 2%. China, by far the leading consumer, led gross 

tonnage production of iron ore with relatively low-grade ore. 

China was the leading producer of iron ore in terms of iron 

content, followed by Australia and Brazil (tables 1, 17). For the 

eighth consecutive year, world iron ore trade increased. World 

prices dropped significantly compared with those of 2008. 

Iron ore is the basic raw material for producing iron and 

steel. The supply of iron ore is critical to the economies of 

all industrialized nations. Scrap, a supplement to iron ore in 

steelmaking, is also an extremely important feed material, 

but owing to lack of supply of high-quality scrap, its use has 

limitations. Direct reduced iron (DRI) is an alternative to scrap, 

but requires iron ore for its production.

Two iron oxides—hematite (Fe2O3) and magnetite (Fe3O4)—

are the primary ore minerals of iron. Taconite, the primary iron 

ore mined in the United States, contains hematite and magnetite 

in varying proportions and is found in hard, fine-grained, banded 

iron formations with low iron content, between 20% and 30%. 

Almost all domestic iron ore production is transformed into 

molten iron in blast furnaces by the iron and steel industry. Most 

molten iron then goes directly to a basic oxygen furnace (BOF) 

for conversion to steel by removing most of the residual carbon. 

The remainder is poured into molds to produce pig iron.

In 2009, the United States used 31.0 million metric tons (Mt) 

of iron ore, a decrease of 20.9 Mt, or 40%, compared with that 

of 2008, and produced 19.0 Mt of pig iron. Pig iron production 

decreased 44% from that of 2008 and was at the lowest level 

since before World War II. 

Raw steel production, at 59.4 Mt, decreased 35% compared 

with that of 2008. U.S. steel consumption decreased to 63 

Mt from 102 Mt in 2008. Imported iron ore supplements 

domestically produced iron ore in the production of pig iron, 

which is used along with imported pig iron, DRI, and scrap to 

produce raw steel. Integrated steel mills produce steel from iron 

ore; minimills produce steel from DRI and scrap. In 2009, the 

minimill sector of the steel industry made up 62% of the U.S. 

raw steel production (American Iron and Steel Institute, 2010, 

p. 73). 

Integrated steelmakers can increase steel mill product 

production without increasing blast furnace production 

by importing pig iron and semifinished steel. This permits 

steelmakers to avoid costly startup of less-efficient blast 

furnaces held in reserve and the employment of additional 

skilled workers. In 2009, net U.S. exports (exports minus 

imports) of iron ore substitutes were 5.7 Mt, while in 2008 

the United States was a net exporter of 14.8 Mt of substitutes. 

This increase in exports was owing to continued high levels 

of scrap steel net exports combined with substantial decreases 

in net imports of DRI, pig iron, and semifinished steel 

products. During the year, along with the 33% decrease in 

raw steel production and a 38% drop in steel demand, iron ore 

consumption declined 40% from 2008 levels.

Legislation and Government Programs

In 2009, the Minnesota production tax rate to be distributed 

in 2010 changed for concentrates and pellets produced in 

2009, increasing to $2.364 from $2.316 per taxable long ton. 

The taxable tonnage for 2009 is based on the average tonnage 

produced in 2007–09.

Changes affecting taconite mining and processing operations 

passed by the Minnesota Legislature in 2009 included 

production taxation items that would be based on the 2008 and 

2009 production. A Taconite Environmental Protection Fund 

was established to receive 15.5 cents per long ton (about 15.3 

cents per metric ton) from 2008 production that would have 

gone into the Taconite Property Tax Relief Account. Instead, 

these funds were set aside for use in renewable energy initiatives 

to be distributed in 2009 only. A production tax change for 2009 

that would affect distribution of taxes in 2010 and thereafter 

included redistribution to 50% mining and 50% processing from 

40% mining and 60% processing of the proceeds when mining 

and processing were carried out in two separate tax districts. 

Another production tax change for 2009 that would affect 

distribution of taxes in 2010 was a redistribution of excess tax 

funds to cities and towns within a school district if distribution 

to the school district would reduce State aid to the district 

(Minnesota Department of Revenue, 2009, p. 1, 6, 7, 20; 2010, 

p. 1, 20).

Production

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) develops U.S. iron 

ore production data through an annual “Iron Ore” survey, 

which is sent to iron ore mines, and those mines provided 

the production statistics listed in tables 1 through 5. This 

information is supplemented by employment data, information 

from consumers, and mine inspection reports. The American 

Iron Ore Association became a supplier-oriented organization, 

now known as the Iron Mining Association of Minnesota, and 

no longer provides data on ore shipments from loading docks on 

the Upper Great Lakes nor receipts at transfer docks and furnace 

yards nationwide. Steel plant data continues to be compiled by 

the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI).

In 2009, domestic iron ore production was 26.7 Mt, about 

one-half of the 2008 production, which was 53.6 Mt. Michigan 

and Minnesota taconite mines accounted for almost all domestic 

iron ore production—six mines operated on the Mesabi Range 
39.2 [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2009

in northeastern Minnesota and two on the Marquette Range 

in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. Domestic iron ore supply 

(production minus exports) met 74% of domestic demand in 

2009, 3% less than the average from 2005 through 2008. 

Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. (Cleveland, OH) announced 

2009 iron ore production for its North American operations. 

Mine production, which totaled 20 Mt, was as follows (United 

States, unless otherwise specified)—Empire, 2.6 Mt; Hibbing 

Taconite, 1.7 Mt; Northshore, 3.3 Mt; Tilden, 5.7 Mt; United 

Taconite, 3.9 Mt; and Wabush (Canada), 2.7 Mt. Cliffs’ share of 

the total production from these North American operations was 

17.4 Mt. Total Cliffs’ North American production tonnage share 

for the mines it managed during the year decreased by 25% 

compared with that of 2008, and overall iron ore sales revenue 

decreased to $1.45 billion, a decrease of 39% compared with 

that of 2008 (Cliffs Natural Resources Inc., 2010, p. 56, 57).

In June 2009, Cliffs acquired significant ownership of 

Freewest Resources Canada Inc. (Montreal, Quebec, Canada), 

with its three world-class chromite deposits in anticipation 

of diversifying downstream from its core merchant iron ore 

business. Cliffs planned to include construction of the open pit 

mine and mine-site processing facility, as well as an electric 

arc furnace (EAF) to further process the chromite ore into 

high-grade ferrochromium. The EAF facility was expected to be 

located on the north shore of Lake Superior after a permitting 

process anticipated to require approximately 3 years, with 

production startup in about 2015 (Cliffs Natural Resources Inc., 

2009a). 

Michigan.—Michigan accounted for about 31% of U.S. 

usable iron ore output in 2009; nearly all of Michigan’s output 

was pellet production. The Empire Mine production was mostly 

flux pellets. The Tilden Mine produced magnetite and hematite 

flux pellets. The Empire Mine and the Tilden Mine production 

each showed a decrease of 2.0 Mt compared with that of 2008. 

Owing to a postponement of a development project, the reserve 

estimate for the Empire Mine was reduced by 45%, while 

Tilden Mine reserves remained the same net of production 

(Cliffs Natural Resources Inc., 2010, p. 35, 57; Skillings Mining 

Review, 2010c, p. 6–7). 

Minnesota.—Minnesota produced 69% of the usable iron ore 

in the United States in 2009; nearly all of the output was pellet 

production. Almost all of the production from the State came 

from open pits on the Mesabi Iron Range, although a minor 

amount of the production did come from reworked tailings. 

Minnesota pellet production, grouped by operating company, 

was summarized as follows: Hibbing Taconite Company 

produced standard and high-compression pellets; Northshore 

Mining Company produced 3.3 Mt of standard pellets, including 

a small amount of sinter material and concentrate; United 

Taconite Company, LLC produced pellets and a minor amount 

of concentrates; ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine Inc. (Chicago, IL) 

produced 1.5 Mt of flux pellets, including a minor amount of 

pellet chips; and United States Steel Corp. (Pittsburgh, PA) had 

no production from its Keewatin Taconite operations and 7.7 Mt 

of acid and flux pellet production from its Minntac operations 

(ArcelorMittal, 2010, p. 51; Cliffs Natural Resources Inc., 2010, 

p. 57; Skillings Mining Review, 2010b, p. 8, 12–15; United 

States Steel Corp., 2010, F–62). 

In early February, U.S. Steel announced plans to lay off 500 

union employees, as well as 90 management employees at its 

Minntac operations (Mountain Iron, MN). In December [2008], 

U.S. Steel had already halted production at its Keetac operation 

(Keewatin, MN). Lack of new steel orders forced the steel 

company to reduce production from its upstream operations 

(Bowen, 2009), but by August, with rising steel requirements, 

the company announced plans to start up an additional pellet 

production line at the Minntac plant in Iron Mountain, MN, 

and to start up an additional two lines in September. U.S. Steel 

would then have four of the five production lines at Minntac in 

operation (Skillings Mining Review, 2009d), but at Keetac, the 

company had workers begin winterizing the plant in anticipation 

of extending the shutdown of operations (Skillings Mining 

Review, 2009b).

ArcelorMittal (Luxembourg) attributed the reduction in 

production from 2.8 Mt in 2008, to a shutdown of operations 

between May and September in 2009. Owing to market 

conditions, no iron ore was produced during this period 

(ArcelorMittal, 2010, p. 51).

Cliffs extended the shutdown of the Northshore Mining 

Co. facilities, which had been initiated in April through 

July (Skillings Mining Review, 2009e). Cliffs indicated 

that the joint-venture owners of the Hibbing Taconite Mine 

[ArcelorMittal, 62.3%; Cliffs, 23.0%; and U.S. Steel Canada 

Inc. (Hamilton, Ontario, Canada), 14.7%] had agreed to 

lengthen the shutdown at the plant, which has a rated capacity 

of 8.1 million metric tons per year (Mt/yr). This extended the 

shutdown—which started with two of three pellet lines shut 

down in March and then the plant shut down for 15 weeks 

beginning in May—through the first quarter of 2010 (Cliffs 

Natural Resources Inc., 2009b).

Steel Dynamics, Inc. (Fort Wayne, IN) completed construction 

and began commissioning on the $260 million Mesabi Nugget 

project in Hoyt Lakes, MN. The main plant facility has a 

180-foot-diameter gas-fired rotary-hearth furnace (RHF) that, 

through a chemical reduction process, was expected to yield 

millions of 96% to 98% iron nuggets. The feed material—

iron ore concentrate, coal, and binding agents—was to be 

mixed and dried to form marblesized “dry balls” in ancillary 

facilities. These balls were then to be melted in the RHF to 

form the iron nuggets. At full capacity, the plant was expected 

to produce 500,000 metric tons per year (t/yr) of iron nuggets. 

Steel Dynamics expected to follow through with additional 

investments in an adjacent iron mine, once the required permits 

were received from the State of Minnesota (Skillings Mining 

Review, 2009c; Steel Dynamics, Inc., 2010, p. 5).

Magnetation, Inc. (Nashwauk, MN) began production of iron 

concentrate from its Mesabi Chief plant near Keewatin, MN. 

Magnetation invested $9.6 million to bring its plant online. 

The plant was expected to produce low-cost iron concentrates 

at a rate of 300,000 t/yr from lean ore stockpiles of hematite 

and natural ore tailings. Plans for expansion to 750,000 t/yr of 

concentrate were being made to help feed the 500,000 t/yr (96% 

to 98% iron) Mesabi Nugget facility being constructed at nearby 

Hoyt Lakes, MN, by Steel Dynamics (Metal Bulletin, 2009e; 

Redmon, 2009).
Iron Ore—2009 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 39.3

Consumption

U.S. iron ore consumption declined by 40% to 31.0 Mt from 

the 2008 figure of 51.9 Mt (table 1). Pig iron production, at 19.0 

Mt in 2009, was almost one-half of the 5-year average of 37.5 

Mt/yr for 2004 through 2008. Raw steel production using BOF 

technology, which had been at the lowest production level in 

more than a decade in 2008, decreased by more than 40% to 

22.7 Mt.

Consumption of iron ore, including agglomerates, reported 

to the AISI by producers of iron and steel totaled 30.3 Mt, 

including 26.2 Mt of pellets; 3.8 Mt of sinter, briquettes, and 

other products; and 0.3 Mt of natural coarse ore (table 7). 

Of the ore consumed, 74% was domestic production; 10%, 

imports from Canada; 2%, imports from other countries; and the 

balance was drawdowns of domestic stocks. Other iron-bearing 

materials charged to blast furnaces included mill scale, slag 

scrap, and steel furnace slag.

The three consumption numbers used in this annual review 

are reported in tables 1, 7, and 8. The first consumption number 

(31.0 Mt in 2009), in table 1, is the sum of the ore consumed 

by input type reported by the AISI, the ore consumed in DRI 

production, and the ore consumed in nonsteel uses, as reported 

to the USGS (American Iron and Steel Institute, 2010, p. 81). 

The second consumption number (30.4 Mt in 2009), in table 

7, is the ore consumed in U.S. iron and steel plants by type of 

ore reported by the AISI. The third consumption number is an 

estimate of DRI and other miscellaneous uses, which include 

iron ore consumed in production of cement and iron ore shipped 

for use in manufacturing paint, ferrites, heavy media, cattle 

feed, refractory and weighing materials, and for use in lead 

smelting are listed in table 8. The latter consumption figure was 

the ore consumed in DRI production (of which there was none 

produced in 2009) and nonsteel uses (0.60 Mt in 2009). Data 

on iron ore consumption in nonsteel end uses (table 8) were 

compiled from USGS surveys and information provided by 

Midrex Technologies, Inc. (2010, p. 7).

Prices

At the beginning of 2009, the secretary general of the China 

Iron & Steel Association (CISA) reportedly indicated that China 

would not seek “unreasonable decreases” during 2009 iron ore 

contract price negotiations. China tried to negotiate for price 

reductions to be made retroactive to January so that Chinese 

mills would not be forced to pay 2008 negotiated prices. CISA 

indicated that it would like more flexibility to adjust prices 

midyear, but did not want to be hampered by an iron ore index 

for long-term supply contracts (Li, 2009). CISA for the first time 

included a representative in the Chinese delegation discussing 

annual iron ore price contracts. CISA reportedly wanted to 

strengthen coordination among Chinese steel producers and 

would need to agree to any benchmarks established by China’s 

major producers (Metal Bulletin, 2009b).

As the April 1 annual contract date passed, contract 

negotiations continued between the leading iron ore producers 

and steelmakers. BHP Billiton Ltd. (Melbourne, Australia) 

indicated that it would like to eliminate the 12-month contract 

system using either the spot market or some type of index price. 

Both Vale S.A. (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil), the world’s leading 

producer of iron ore which had officially changed its corporate 

name from Companhia Vale do Rio Doce (CVRD), and Rio 

Tinto plc (London, United Kingdom) favored continuing with a 

contract price because they felt it was more stable. At the time 

of the negotiations, China reportedly was expected to reduce 

iron ore imports in 2009 by 20% compared with 2008 import 

levels. A price reduction of upwards of 30% was expected to be 

negotiated for contract year 2009–10 (Matthews, 2009a; Vale 

S.A., 2009a).

At the end of May, Rio Tinto settled the 2009–10 annual iron 

ore contract with Japanese steel firms—JFE Holdings Inc., Kobe 

Steel Ltd., Nippon Steel Corp., and Sumitomo Metal Industries 

Ltd.—and Korea’s POSCO. The agreement was for a 33% lower 

price for fines and a 44% lower price for lump ore, the first price 

reduction in 7 years. Chinese steelmakers continued to negotiate 

deeper discounts on both lump and fine ores. Vale continued 

discussions with steel firms (Thompson, 2009). Despite the 

impasse in iron ore price negotiations, Chinese imports of iron 

ore through May 2009, at 242 Mt, increased 26% compared with 

those of the same period in 2008. The import value of this ore 

was almost 28% lower when comparing these two periods (TEX 

Report, The, 2009c).

Following the rejection of a $19.5 billion investment offer 

to increase its ownership of Rio Tinto by the Aluminum Corp. 

of China Ltd. (Chinalco) (Beijing, China) and the subsequent 

decision to develop a joint venture of Australian iron ore assets 

by BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto, an Australian executive of 

Rio Tinto was arrested by Chinese authorities on suspicion 

of espionage and stealing state secrets (Ritchie, 2009). The 

failed offer, joint venture, and arrest of Rio Tinto’s executive 

came amidst a failure by BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto, and Vale, to 

reach an annual contract price agreement with Chinese iron ore 

purchasers. Vale appeared to be holding back to avoid repeating 

the 2008 problem of settling earlier for a lower price than either 

BHP Billiton or Rio Tinto (Matthews, 2009b).

A move to a more market-based, rather than negotiated, 

contract iron ore price became evident. At the end of the July, 

BHP Billiton announced that it had reached agreement on 53% 

of its iron ore sales for the 2009 contract year. Only 23% was 

set based on the annual contract price, while the other 30% was 

priced using quarterly, spot, and index-based prices. In 2008, 

when spot prices collapsed, some buyers reneged on contracts, 

leaving annual contract prices little more than an upside limit for 

producers. The arrest of the Rio Tinto executive in China gave 

additional incentive for producers to rely to a greater degree 

on independently established market prices (Denning, 2009). 

Amidst the continued stalemate between Chinese buyers and 

worldwide iron ore producers, an iron ore trade association—the 

Iron Ore & Steel Derivatives Association (IODA)—was formed 

to promote the trade of iron ore and related derivates, develop 

standard terms for iron ore contract transactions, and support the 

development and use of independent market indices. IODA was 

seen, by itself, as having an important role in the iron ore market 

as the market moved from annual contract pricing toward a spot 

market (Metal Bulletin, 2009d).

Fortescue Metals Group Ltd. (East Perth, Australia) agreed to 

a price 3% below the benchmark into the Asian markets for its 
39.4 [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2009

iron ore sold to Chinese steel mills. This agreement permitted 

Fortescue to complete a $6 billion deal to obtain financing 

from Chinese sponsors for project expansion (Mining Journal, 

2009b).

As negotiating posturing began for 2010 contract negotiations, 

CISA indicated that iron ore oversupply would worsen in 

the fourth quarter of 2009. China’s imports for the first three 

quarters were 469.4 Mt of iron ore, an increase of almost 36% 

from those of the same period during the previous year. CISA 

was pressing a unified iron ore import price and a qualifications 

review for iron ore importers (Metal Bulletin, 2009c). 

Transportation 

The Lake Carriers’ Association reported that the iron ore 

shipments on the Great Lakes fell to the lowest level in 71 years. 

Iron ore cargos on the Great Lakes (includes Great Lakes and 

St. Lawrence Seaway ports to Great Lakes destinations) totaled 

28.8 Mt, the lowest level since 1938. Iron ore shipments for 

2009 were 53% of the 5-year average of 2004–08. The Soo 

Locks on the Great Lakes closed for the season on January 15 

and were reopened on March 25 in accordance with a 

multiagency agreement to allow inspection and maintenance of 

systems, structures, and key equipment (Great Lakes & Seaway 

Shipping News, 2009; Lake Carriers’ Association, 2010a, b).

Early in 2009, the CSL Argosy, an 800-foot bulk carrier 

loaded with iron ore, ran aground in the Chesapeake Bay, just 

north of Annapolis, MD. The vessel, headed to Baltimore, MD, 

had 19,300 t of iron ore removed and was refloated before 

proceeding to inspection in Annapolis (American Metal Market, 

2009).

Foreign Trade

In 2009, U.S. exports of iron ore exceeded imports by a 

slight margin, which represented only a minor percentage of 

domestic apparent consumption. Exports decreased by 65%, 

while imports decreased by 58% compared with 2008 figures. 

U.S. iron ore exports were 96% pellets (3.8 Mt), and 78% of 

the exports was shipped via the Great Lakes to Canadian steel 

companies, while 6% was shipped to Germany, 5% each to 

Belgium and France, 3% to China, 2% to Mexico, and the rest 

to 21 other countries. U.S. imports totaled 3.9 Mt, of which 

Brazil’s share decreased to 5% from 28% in 2008, Canada’s 

share increased to 81% from 64%, and Chile’s share increased 

to 5% from 2% in 2008 (tables 1, 9–15).

World Industry Structure

Consumption.—Although global iron ore consumption is 

not measured directly, imports of iron ore and production of 

crude steel, DRI, and pig iron can be used as guides to indicate 

whether consumption rises or falls. DRI and pig iron production 

are likely to be more direct indicators of iron ore consumption 

than crude steel production because, to varying degrees in each 

country, part of steel production comes from scrap consumption 

in minimills. Iron ore net imports cannot be used as a 

straightforward indicator of a change in iron ore consumption in 

countries that produce iron ore unless a country’s ore production 

remains constant. World consumption of iron ore was estimated 

to have decreased slightly as indicated by slight decreases in pig 

iron and DRI production compared with 2008 levels. Of the nine 

countries that had 2% or more of world pig iron production in 

2009, seven of the countries showed negative growth, including 

the United States, comparing 2009 production with each 

country’s average pig iron production from 2005 through 2009. 

The growth rates compared with the 5-year average (2005–09) 

for these countries were as follows: India, 26%; China, 22%; 

Republic of Korea, -4%; Russia, -10%; Japan, -18%; Ukraine, 

-18%; Germany, -28%; Brazil, -42%; and the United States, 

-43%. Of the five leading producing countries of pig iron in 

2009, only China (16%) and India (32%) showed an increase in 

production from that of 2008—decreases for the other countries 

were as follows: Japan, 22%; the Republic of Korea, 12%; and 

Russia, 10%.

Interest in mine development increased toward the end of 

2009 owing to a recovery from the global economic downturn, 

as producers positioned themselves to take advantage of 

expected continuing high levels of consumption driven by 

Chinese economic growth. With new iron ore production 

capacity, world supply of iron ore was expected to be adequate 

through 2010. 

World crude steel production fell to 1.2 billion metric tons 

(Gt) from 1.3 Gt in 2008. Six countries produced more than 30 

Mt of crude steel each and combined accounted for almost 70% 

of world production in 2009. Of those countries, China produced 

about 68 Mt more crude steel in 2009 than in 2008 and India 

produced 8 Mt more. The others (Germany, Japan, Republic 

of Korea, and the United States) combined produced 83 Mt 

less crude steel in 2009 than in 2008. Annual world crude steel 

production, excluding China, decreased by more than 130 Mt in 

2009. Between 2000 and 2009, China, Germany, India, Japan, 

Republic of Korea, Russia, and the United States accounted for 

two-thirds of combined world crude steel production. China’s 

2009 production was more than 70% greater than its average 

for the 10-year period, while that of the United States was 37% 

less than its average for the 10-year period (United Nations 

Conference on Trade and Development, 2010, p. 118–121).

Production.—World iron ore production of 2.2 Gt, gross 

weight, increased slightly from 2008 production levels. Annual 

world production has exceeded 1 Gt, gross weight, each year 

since it first reached that level in 1995, and has exceeded 2 

Gt since 2007. Australia’s and Brazil’s combined share of 

world production by gross weight from 2005 through 2009 

averaged 32%. In 2009, iron ore was produced in 42 countries, 

with production exceeding 1 Mt, gross weight, in 28 of those 

countries. World DRI production decreased to 64.4 Mt, which 

was 5% less than that of 2008 (Midrex Technologies, Inc., 

2010).

Trade.—World iron ore imports of 941 Mt rose by 4% 

compared with 2008 levels. Following large year-on-year 

increases in imports for the past 7 years (21% in 2002, 33% in 

2003, 40% in 2004, 32% in 2005, 19% in 2006, 17% in 2007, 

and 16% in 2008), China posted another sharp rise to 628 Mt 

in 2009 from 440 Mt in 2008—a gain of more than 40%. Since 

2000, four countries have accounted for more than two-thirds 

of world iron ore imports. Germany’s share of imports in that 

period decreased to 3% from 10%, Japan’s share decreased to 
Iron Ore—2009 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 39.5

11% from 26%, and the Republic of Korea’s share decreased 

to 4% from 8%. China’s share more than tripled during this 

10-year period to 67% from 14%. Australia’s and Brazil’s 

combined share of world iron ore exports remained the same at 

67% in 2009 compared with their revised share in 2008. Five 

countries represented more than 86% of world iron ore exports. 

In decreasing order of market share, Australia held 38%; Brazil, 

28%; India, 12%; South Africa, 5%; and Canada, 3% (United 

Nations Conference on Trade and Development, 2010, 

p. 100–103). 

In China, the State Administration of Taxation in the Ministry 

of Finance announced the rate of value-added tax for imported 

iron ore would be raised from 13% to 17%. This increase 

became effective beginning January 1, 2009 (TEX Report, 

The, 2009d). According to The TEX Report (2010), China, 

the world’s leading importer of iron ore, imported 599 Mt of 

nonagglomerated iron ore and 30 Mt of agglomerated ore in 

2009. The leading exporters of nonagglomerated ore to China 

were Australia (43%), Brazil (23%), India (18%), and South 

Africa (6%), with the remainder shared among more than 30 

countries. The leading exporters of agglomerated ore to China 

were Brazil (25%), Canada (17%), Ukraine (12%), Russia 

(11%), and Kazakhstan (11%), with the remainder shared among 

more than 23 countries. 

Mergers and Acquisitions.—In October, Cliffs exercised 

its right of first refusal and announced it would purchase 

Wabush Mines, with mine, rail, concentrating, pelletizing, and 

port operations in Newfoundland and Labrador, and Quebec 

Provinces, Canada. Cliffs planned to purchase Wabush Mines 

from the two other joint-venture partners—ArcelorMittal 

Dofasco (Hamilton, Ontario, Canada) (a subsidiary of 

ArcelorMittal) and U.S. Steel Canada (Hamilton, Ontario, 

Canada) (a subsidiary of U.S. Steel). The $88 million purchase 

would increase Cliffs’ ownership in the operations to 100% from 

26.8%. Wabush Mines has a production capacity of 5.6 Mt/yr 

and reportedly about 70 Mt of iron ore reserves (Cliffs Natural 

Resources Inc., 2009c). 

In January, Vale announced a purchase and sale agreement 

with Rio Tinto to acquire 100% of the Corumbá open pit iron 

ore operations in the State of Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil. The 

price for the iron ore assets was $750 million and included 

associated logistics assets—port and barges. The Corumbá 

Mine had a production capacity of 2.5 Mt/yr and reportedly had 

proven and probable reserves at yearend 2007 of 583 Mt with 

a 62.7% iron ore content. By mid-September, Vale completed 

the purchase of the iron ore mine, including associated transport 

operations on the Paraguay River. Vale announced tentative 

plans to increase production capacity at Corumbá to 15 Mt/yr at 

a cost of greater than $2 billion (Vale S.A., 2009b, c). 

Chinalco, a Chinese state-owned enterprise, proposed a $19.5 

billion investment in Rio Tinto. Approximately $7.2 billion 

of the investment would be in convertible bonds, which when 

exercised would give Chinalco 18% ownership of Rio Tinto 

(Wilson and others, 2009). Australia’s Foreign Investment 

Review Board (FIRB) faced an inquiry by state representatives 

into the bid by Chinalco, as well as a bid by another Chinese 

state-run enterprise (Hunan Valin Iron and Steel Group Co. Ltd.) 

for 16.5% interest in Fortescue Metals. FIRB regulates foreign 

ownership in Australian companies and restricts control of 

natural resources by foreign entities (Wilshaw, 2009). 

In June, a nonbinding agreement was signed between Rio 

Tinto and BHP Billiton to form a joint venture covering 

production for both companies’ Western Australian iron ore 

assets. The 50–50 ownership was expected to enhance each 

company’s profitability through combination of adjacent mines 

into a single operating unit, more efficient utilization of rail and 

port facilities, improvement in blending and product quality, 

optimization of future facilities growth and project development, 

and combination of staff functions within a single entity. This 

merger follows a breakdown of the proposed deal between 

Chinalco and Rio Tinto, in which the Chinese state-owned 

company would have obtained partial ownership of Rio Tinto 

(BHP Billiton Ltd., 2009b, p. 1; Brindal, 2009). 

BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto later decided not to proceed with 

the formation of a joint-venture iron ore marketing entity and 

instead market production from their planned joint venture 

separately. The companies continued plans to merge production 

and development units to take advantage of significant 

operational synergies (BHP Billiton Ltd., 2009a). The decision 

to keep separate marketing entities may aid regulators in 

appraising the merger. CISA’s unification of all Chinese iron ore 

purchasing in one organization may be seen, especially in light 

of the two major iron ore producing companies’ withdrawal 

from a unified sales strategy, as a strong move away from 

balanced trade negotiations toward a market in which the 

purchaser (China) has greater control (Metal Bulletin, 2009f). 

In April, China’s National Development and Reform 

Commission approved the purchase of 260 million shares of 

Australia’s Fortescue Metals by Hunan Valin for $A644.8 

million (US$445 million). The share purchase agreement, 

giving Valin 17.3% of Fortescue capital ownership, was signed 

on February 25 and subsequently approved by the Australian 

Federal Treasurer. Hunan Valin planned to assist Fortescue in 

obtaining additional debt financing. It was estimated that an 

additional $3 to $4 billion would be required to raise production 

capacity to 90 Mt/yr from 50 Mt/yr at Fortescue’s iron ore 

mines. Fortescue is the third largest producer of iron ore in 

Australia reportedly with 1.6 Gt of iron ore reserves in Western 

Australia’s Pilbara Region (Fortescue Metals Group Ltd., 2009).

In an effort to acquire additional equity interest in Australian 

iron ore resources, Chinese investors sought and received 

approval from Australia’s FIRB for Anshan Iron & Steel 

Group to increase its equity ownership of Gindalbie Metals 

Ltd. to 36.28% from 12.6%. Gindalbie was developing the 

Karara iron ore project in Western Australia, with plans for 

port development at Oakajee and a joint-venture pellet plant 

in China (TEX Report, The, 2009b; Wall Street Journal, The, 

2009). FIRB also approved a $246 million deal between Centrex 

Metals Ltd. (Adelaide, Australia) and Wuhan Iron & Steel Co. 

(WISCO). Chinese Government-owned WISCO was then able 

to take a 60% stake in iron ore rights to five Centrex tenements 

on the Eyre Peninsula in South Australia. WISCO planned to 

invest an additional $169 million in staged payments linked 

to achieving JORC-inferred resources of up to 2 Gt (Mining 

Journal, 2009e). Centrex also received approval from FIRB for 

a joint venture with Baotou Steel Group, a Chinese state-owned 
39.6 [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2009

entity headquartered in Inner Mongolia. The 50–50 magnetite 

joint venture planned to develop tenements on the Eyre 

Peninsula, with potential for production of between 3 Mt/yr and 

5 Mt/yr (Metal Bulletin, 2009a). 

World Review

Afghanistan.—The Ministry of Mines of Afghanistan 

requested expressions of interest for the Hajigak iron deposit. 

The deposit was estimated to contain about 1.8 Gt of iron ore 

resources at a grade of 62% iron content within 16 ore bodies 

along a strike length of 32 kilometers (km). The deposit is 

located about 130 km west of Kabul. Successful applicants were 

to be notified by the Ministry of Mines on or before May 20, 

2009, and would receive a bid package for the Hajigak deposit 

(Mining Journal, 2009c). The bidding was later reopened in 

early 2010 in order to improve transparency issues related to the 

first bidding process (Rupert and Najafizada, 2010).

Australia.—BHP Billiton announced full-year production 

figures for 2009. BHP Billiton’s share of salable quantities of 

iron ore (wet) were as follows (Australia, unless otherwise 

specified)—Area C Joint Venture (JV) (85% owned), 37.0 

Mt; Goldsworthy JV (85% owned), 1.7 Mt; Mt. Newman JV 

and Jimblebar (85% owned), 30.4 Mt; Samarco (Brazil) (50% 

owned), 8.9 Mt; and Yandi JV (85% owned), 39.9 Mt. BHP 

Billiton’s share of total world mine production was 117.8 Mt 

in 2009, a slight increase from that of 2008 (BHP Billiton Ltd., 

2010a, p. 4).

BHP Billiton completed its Rapid Growth Project 4 with the 

opening of the Newman Mining Hub—the company’s center for 

mining, crushing, and screening in the Eastern Pilbara region 

of Western Australia. The $1.85 billion project was designed to 

raise BHP Billiton’s production capacity in the Pilbara by 26 

Mt/yr to 155 Mt/yr, part of an overall expansion plan to raise 

iron ore production to 300 Mt/yr by 2015. Rapid Growth Project 

5, a $4.80 billion project with engineering 85% complete and 

construction 25% complete by yearend 2009, was expected 

to add 50 Mt/yr to system capacity by the second half of 2011 

(Skillings Mining Review, 2009a; BHP Billiton Ltd., 2010b).

Rio Tinto announced full-year production figures for 2009. 

Rio Tinto’s share of salable quantities of iron ore plus pellets 

were as follows (Australia, unless otherwise specified)—

Channar (60% owned), 6.6 Mt; Corumbá (Brazil), 1.5 Mt; 

Eastern Range, 9.3 Mt; Hamersley, 106.8 Mt; Hope Downs 

(50% owned), 10.3 Mt; Iron Ore Company of Canada (IOC) 

(58.7% owned), 8.1 Mt; and Robe River (53% owned), 28.8 Mt. 

Rio Tinto’s share of total world mine production was 171.5 Mt, 

a 12% increase from that of 2008 (Rio Tinto plc, 2010, p. 166).

Rio Tinto announced that its HIsmelt pig iron plant (Kwinana, 

Western Australia) would be placed on care and maintenance 

for 1 year at the end of March. The Kwinana plant, with design 

capacity of 800,000 t/yr, used proprietary, direct-smelting 

technology to produce pig iron from high-phosphorus iron ore 

fines and noncoking coal. Rio Tinto (60%), United States’ Nucor 

Corp. (25%), Japan’s Mitsubishi Corp. (10%), and China’s 

Shougang Corp. (5%) jointly own the plant (TEX Report, The, 

2009a). 

Atlas Iron Ltd. (West Perth) secured additional berthing 

facilities at Port Hedland to bring its production capacity to 6 

Mt/yr. The Utah Point facilities were under construction and 

were expected to begin exports of Atlas iron ore in April 2010. 

Atlas began mining iron ore from its 100%-owned Pardoo 

Mine in 2008, and shipped its first direct shipping ore (DSO) in 

December 2008 (Atlas Iron Ltd., 2009).

Fortescue Metals decided to fund an expansion of its 

Pilbara operations after a deal with Chinese investors failed. 

The proposed $6 billion funding requirement would be used 

to double iron ore output to 90 Mt/yr. Original funding with 

Chinese investors had been tied to an agreement by Fortescue to 

sell 20 Mt of iron ore to Chinese steel mills at a 35% reduction 

on the previous year’s prices (Welch, 2009). 

Brazil.—In 2009, Vale reported iron ore production was 238 

Mt (includes Vale’s Samarco, which was a joint venture until 

becoming fully owned by Vale in September)—a 21% decrease 

compared with that of 2008. Vale’s share of salable quantities 

of iron ore was as follows, in decreasing order of tonnage—

Southeastern System, 89.5 Mt; Carajás, 84.6 Mt; Southern 

System, 55.2 Mt; and Samarco, 8.6 Mt. Vale pellet production 

in 2009 was 23.9 Mt—a 47% decrease compared with that of 

2008. The breakdown of salable quantities of iron ore pellets 

was as follows, in decreasing order of pellet production—

Samarco, 8.0 Mt; Nibrasco, 5.8 Mt; Tubarão I and II, 3.9 Mt; 

Vargem Grande, 2.2 Mt; Kobrasco, 1.7 Mt; Itabrasco, 1.5 Mt; 

Hispanobras, 0.6 Mt; Fábrica, 0.2 Mt; and São Luís, 3,000 t. Of 

this pellet production, 14.0 Mt was blast furnace pellets and 9.8 

Mt was direct reduction pellets. A large part of pellet production 

in 2009 was shut down owing to reduced global demand and a 

desire to avoid excessive inventory buildup. The Vargem Grande 

pellet plant continued to ramp up production and construction 

continued on two new plants: Tubarão VIII (16.5 Mt/yr pellet 

production capacity) and another plant in Oman (9.8 Mt/yr 

direct reduction pellet production capacity) (Vale S.A., 2010, 

p. 2, 3).

MMX Mineração e Metálicos S.A. (Rio de Janeiro) 

announced that resources at its Serra Azul Mine had increased 

five-fold to 515 Mt, with measured and indicated resources 

totaling 381 Mt (MMX Mineração e Metálicos S.A., 2009). 

Canada.—IOC [owned jointly by Labrador Iron Ore Royalty 

Income Fund (15.1%), Mitsubishi Corporation (26.18%), and 

Rio Tinto (58.72%)] produced 5.7 Mt of iron ore concentrates 

and 8.1 Mt of iron ore pellets. ArcelorMittal Mines Canada 

(formerly Québec Cartier Mining Company) produced 13.1 

Mt of iron ore concentrates and pellets. Wabush Mines Ltd. 

[owned jointly by ArcelorMittal (28.6%), Cliffs (26.8%), and 

U.S. Steel Canada (44.6%)] produced 2.7 Mt of iron ore pellets 

(ArcelorMittal, 2010, p. 53; Cliffs Natural Resources Inc., 2010, 

p. 57; Skillings Mining Review, 2010b, p. 10–11).

Consolidated Thompson Iron Mines Ltd. (Toronto, Canada) 

signed a letter of agreement with China’s WISCO for the 

investment of $240 million in return for 19.9% of the shares 

of Consolidated Thompson. WISCO would also receive a 

25% interest in the company incorporated to operate the future 

Bloom Lake iron ore mine in Quebec. Bloom Lake planned to 

produce 8 Mt/yr of iron ore, with expansion potential to 

16 Mt/yr. Initial startup, although planned for late 2009, was 

postponed to 2010 (Consolidated Thompson Iron Mines Ltd., 

2009). 
Iron Ore—2009 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 39.7

Labrador Iron Mines (LIM) Holdings Ltd. (Toronto, Ontario) 

acquired an additional 50 Mt of DSO in the Province of Quebec. 

The deal was comprised of five separate transactions, in which 

Schefferville Mines Inc. (a fully owned subsidiary of LIM) 

obtained rights to several properties in different stages of 

exploration and development. The DSO properties are located 

near the company’s planned western Labrador operations, which 

were scheduled to begin production in mid-2010 (Gordon, 

2009).

China.—In June, it was reported that China discovered a 

massive iron ore deposit with 3 Gt of iron ore reported reserves 

in the northeastern province of Liaoning. The Dataigou deposit 

has an ore grade of between 25% and 62% iron and was located 

between 1.2 and 2.0 km below the surface.

China continued to report new project developments in 

advance of the upcoming 2010 iron ore price negotiations. It 

was reported that an iron ore deposit with 1 Gt of reserves was 

discovered in Luannan, Tangshan City, Hebei Province, in the 

northern part of the country. The Macheng deposit was reported 

to contain an average grade of 35% iron and was located 

between 100 and 600 meters below the surface. The Hebei 

Government reported that the deposit would be developed by 

Hebei Iron & Steel Group, the country’s second leading steel 

producer (Skillings Mining Review, 2010a). 

Congo (Brazzaville).—Xstrata plc (Zug, Switzerland) planned 

to invest $50 million to explore the Zanaga iron ore deposit. 

Zanaga is considered a world-class deposit and, if the results of 

the prefeasibility study were sufficiently encouraging, Xstrata 

planned to purchase the property and begin operations as soon 

as possible (Reuters, 2009).

Liberia.—Members of the country’s parliament raised 

concerns related to the $2.6 billion agreement approving 

the development of the Bong iron ore deposit by China 

Union Holdings Ltd. (Shenzhen, China). Final approval was 

being withheld until issues relating to the basis for some 

tax exemptions were clarified (Mining Journal, 2009a). 

ArcelorMittal reported a planned $1.5 billion iron ore mine 

startup would be delayed owing to the downturn of the global 

economy and its effect on the steel market. ArcelorMittal still 

planned to make its first iron ore shipment from the Nimba Mine 

in the third quarter of 2011, and construction and development 

work would start during 2010 (Biesheuvel, 2010).

African Aura Mining Inc. (Vancouver, British Columbia, 

Canada) reported inferred mineral resource of 1.08 Gt 

containing an average of 38% of iron ore at the Company’s Putu 

joint venture with Severstal. The Putu iron ore project is 38.5% 

owned by African Aura. A prefeasibility study was expected to 

be completed (African Aura Mining Inc., 2010, p. 1, 3, 6).

Peru.—Shougang Group (China), the parent company of 

Shougang Hierro Peru S.A., announced plans to invest $1 billion 

to double iron ore production capacity at its Peruvian iron ore 

operations by 2010. The iron ore production capacity was to be 

raised to 10 Mt/yr (Skillings Mining Review, 2009f).

Russia.—In mid-January, Mikhailovsky Mining & Processing 

(MGOK), owned by Metalloinvest Holding Co. (Moscow, 

Russia), resumed iron ore pellet production, which it had shut 

down to perform processing plant maintenance during a decline 

in iron ore market demand. MGOK had shipped stockpiled 

pellets while production was idled at the Lebedinsky and 

Mikhailovsky Mines since November 2008 (Interfax Ltd.—

Russia & CIS—Metals & Mining Weekly, 2009).

OJSC Magnitogorsk Iron & Steel Works (Magnitogorsk, 

Russia) announced the startup of iron ore production at the 

Sosnovsky Mine in the Chelyabinsk Region. Reserves at the 

Sosnovsky deposit were estimated to be 70 Mt with a full 

production rate of between 2.0 Mt/yr and 2.5 Mt/yr, with 1 

Mt/yr of sinter produced by dry magnetic separation. Mining 

rates of 370 Mt/yr and 500 Mt/yr were anticipated for 2009 and 

2010, respectively (OJSC Magnitogorsk Iron & Steel Works, 

2009).

Saudi Arabia.—London Mining Plc (London, United 

Kingdom) reported 157 Mt of ore resources with an average 

grade of 41.1% iron at the Wadi Sawawin prospect. The 

feasibility study suggested a run-of-mine production rate of 11.6 

Mt/yr with an ability to produce 5.5 Mt/yr of direct-reduction 

iron pellets. The initial capital costs were estimated to be $1.8 

billion. London Mining would develop the project with Saudi 

Arabia’s National Mining Co. (Mining Journal, 2009d).

South Africa.—Kumba Iron Ore Ltd. (Centurion), the fourth 

leading supplier of iron ore for the seaborne trade, continued 

work on the Kolomela Mine, formerly known as the Sishen 

South Mine. The new mine, located 70 km southwest of the 

existing Sishen Mine, was expected to begin producing in 2012, 

with an annual production capacity of 9 Mt (Creamer, 2009). 

Sweden.—At Luossavaara-Kiirunavaara Aktiebolag (LKAB) 

(Luleå) iron ore pellet production decreased to 14.7 Mt from 

19.9 Mt in 2008. Pellet production was most of the total 

production, although 3.0 Mt of fines and minor special products 

were produced, a decrease in production of this material from 

3.9 Mt in 2008. Decreased production resulted from all six 

pellet plants being closed intermittently during the first half 

of the year owing to declining market conditions. LKAB 

announced Kiruna’s proven ore reserves to be 598 Mt at 48.6% 

iron content, and probable ore reserves of an additional 76 Mt 

at 46.4% iron content. The company reported Malmberget’s 

proven ore reserves to be 298 Mt at 43.8% iron content, 

and probable ore reserves of 52 Mt at 37.8% iron content 

(Luossavaara-Kiirunavaara Aktiebolag, 2010, p. 5, 19).

Venezuela.—The Venezuelan Government unilaterally 

assumed exclusive control of the Materiales Siderúrgicos SA 

(Matesi) 1.5-Mt/yr hot briquetted iron (HBI) plant, formerly 

owned by Tenaris SA (Luxembourg). Three other privately 

owned hot briquetted iron producers were in negotiations for 

the nationalization of their holdings. Later in the year, following 

nationalization of several HBI plants, extremely low levels of 

HBI production were reported. Technical problems, labor issues, 

and output cuts caused by low prices and decreasing demand for 

product all contributed to these lower production levels (Weik, 

2009a, b).

Outlook

It appeared that U.S. production in 2010 would increase 

almost to 2008 levels, and indications were that recovery 

from the strong economic downturn would continue into 2011 

with steel and iron ore production returning to tonnages seen 

in the previous decade. Most U.S. iron ore production is sold 
39.8 [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2009

directly to the domestic steel industry, although a large amount 

of domestic ore is shipped to Canada and small amounts are 

generally exported to other countries. Neither the domestic 

dependence nor the pattern of exports to Canada is expected 

to change in the near future, although changes in ownership of 

some steel plants have led to minor changes in the countries 

from which iron ore is imported.

Trends in the steel industry are provided in the “Outlook” 

section in the Iron and Steel chapter of the 2009 USGS Minerals 

Yearbook, volume I, Metals and Minerals. The development of 

projects, using new and existing direct reduction technology 

being developed in northern Minnesota, was expected to 

encourage growth of the U.S. iron ore industry within the next 

few years, as developments such as Steel Dynamics’ Mesabi 

Nugget project comes to full production and Essar Steel’s 

Minnesota Iron project is built.

The increase in Chinese iron ore imports in 2009 was a major 

indicator for growth in the global iron ore industry. Overall 

world trade in iron ore increased and international imports of 

iron ore and production of iron ore and pig iron—key indicators 

of iron ore consumption—pointed toward continued dependence 

by the global iron ore industry on increasing Chinese iron ore 

consumption. China was becoming increasingly involved in 

overseas projects in Australia and on the African continent 

through equity participation, which may well affect the balance 

of supply and demand for iron ore in the midterm. Downward 

price pressures would be anticipated as China acquires 

additional sources of supply, which may help to offset reduced 

supply from India, where it is expected that the domestic steel 

industry will take a larger share of iron ore production.

Following the economic downturn, which continued through 

most of 2009, the annual benchmark system of pricing lost its 

predominance in annual global iron ore sales. It is expected 

that more frequent benchmarking and indices developed 

based on spot sales will become a much stronger factor in the 

determination of future pricing. The possibility of developing 

a commodity exchange for the sale of iron ore still remains 

many years in the future. The new pricing system, for the short 

term, appears to give an advantage to the few major iron ore 

producers with respect to the many steel companies needing to 

make purchases.

Development of new iron ore mines in the next few years can 

be expected to add production capacity faster than the growth of 

demand, if those projects already considered strongly probable 

of coming onstream in the next few years actually do. Although 

supply is expected to remain tight in relation to demand, some 

easing of the supply deficit of iron ore needed to satisfy the iron 

ore requirements of China and India’s growing steel industries 

can be expected. This would possibly lead to a leveling off of 

price growth in 2010 through 2013.

New developments and growth of DRI technology would 

allow the iron ore industry to become a major supplier to an 

expanding DRI sector, as well as to existing customers—the 

integrated steel plants. Coastal U.S. steel producers already rely 

on imported DRI to supply a quality raw-material input to help 

meet steel alloy purity specifications, which cannot be obtained 

solely using traditional scrap. However, even in the event of 

strong global DRI growth during the next decade, DRI would be 

able to replace only a small portion of the world’s blast furnace 

production. Although no new “greenfield” pig iron facilities 

have been built in the United States in the past 30 years, and 

owing in part to the continued slow growth in the DRI market, 

the blast furnace, with its need for an assured supply of iron ore, 

is expected to remain the mainstay of the iron and steel industry 

in the immediate future.

References Cited

African Aura Mining Inc., 2010, 2009 annual report and accounts: Vancouver, 

British Columbia, Canada, African Aura Mining Inc., April 20, 48 p.

American Iron and Steel Institute, 2010, 2009 annual statistical report: 

Washington, DC, American Iron and Steel Institute, 126 p.

American Metal Market, 2009, News briefs: American Metal Market, v. 117, 

no. 3–3, January 22, p. 8.

ArcelorMittal, 2010, Form 20–F—Annual report for the fiscal year ended 

December 31, 2009: Washington, DC, Securities and Exchange Commission, 

February 12, 159 p. (Accessed May 20, 2010, via http://

www.arcelormittal.com/.)

Atlas Iron Ltd., 2009, Atlas secures 6 million tonnes of annual iron ore port 

capacity: West Perth, Australia, Atlas Iron Ltd. news release, April 1, 1 p.

BHP Billiton Ltd., 2009a, BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto update on proposed iron 

ore production joint venture: Melbourne, Australia, BHP Billiton Ltd. news 

release, October 15, 1 p. (Accessed May 27, 2010, via http://

www.bhpbilliton.com/.)

BHP Billiton Ltd., 2009b, Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton announce Western 

Australian iron ore production joint venture: Melbourne, Australia, BHP 

Billiton Ltd. news release, June 5, 13 p. (Accessed August 12, 2009, via 

http://www.bhpbilliton.com/.)

BHP Billiton Ltd., 2010a, BHP Billiton production report for the half year ended 

31 December 2009: Melbourne, Australia, BHP Billiton Ltd. news release, 

January 20, 15 p. (Accessed June 22, 2010, via http://www.bhpbilliton.com/.)

BHP Billiton Ltd., 2010b, BHP Billiton quarterly report on exploration and 

development activities quarter ended 31 December 2009: Melbourne, 

Australia, BHP Billiton Ltd. news release, January 20, 5 p. (Accessed 

January 18, 2011, via http://www.bhpbilliton.com/.)

Biesheuvel, Thomas, 2010, ArcelorMittal’s Liberian venture with BHP may 

triple output: Bloomberg Businessweek, February 12. (Accessed 

January 21, 2011, at http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-12/

arcelormittal-s-liberian-venture-with-bhp-may-triple-output.html.)

Bowen, Mick, 2009, USS’ Minntac Mine set for hit, Ill. cuts grow: American 

Metal Market, v. 117, no. 8–1, February 23, p. 7.

Brindal, Ray, 2009, BHP-Rio deal passes muster: The Wall Street Journal, 

June 18, p. B3.

Cliffs Natural Resources Inc., 2009a, Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. announces 

definitive agreement to acquire chromite deposits from Freewest Resources 

Canada, Inc.: Cleveland, OH, Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. news release, 

November 23, 4 p. (Accessed May 27, 2010, via http://

www.cliffsnaturalresources.com/.)

Cliffs Natural Resources Inc., 2009b, Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. provides 

North American business unit update: Cliffs Natural Resources Inc., July 2, 

1 p. (Accessed July 2, 2009, via http://www. cliffsnaturalresources.com/.)

Cliffs Natural Resources Inc., 2009c, Cliffs Natural Resources to exercise 

right of first refusal and acquire partners’ 73.2% interest in Wabush Mines: 

Cleveland, OH, Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. news release, October 12, 3 p. 

(Accessed May 27, 2010, via http://www.cliffsnaturalresources.com/.)

Cliffs Natural Resources Inc., 2010, Form 10–K—Fiscal year 2009: Washington, 

DC, Securities and Exchange Commission, February 18, 171 p. (Accessed 

January 7, 2011, via http://www.cliffsnaturalresources.com/.)

Consolidated Thompson Iron Mines Ltd., 2009, Consolidated Thompson 

announces US$240 million strategic investment from Wuhan Iron and Steel 

Group: Consolidated Thompson Iron Mines Ltd. news release, March 30, 2 p. 

(Accessed June 12, 2009, via http://www.consolidatedthompson.com/.)

Creamer, Martin, 2009, How new Kolomela mine fits into Kumba’s overall 

iron-ore business: Creamer Media’s Mining Weekly, December 4. (Accessed 

January 21, 2011, at http://www.miningweekly.com/print-version/

how-new-kolomela-mine-fits-into-kumbas-overall-iron-orebusiness-2009-12-04.)

Denning, Liam, 2009, BHP swings the hammer at the iron market: The Wall 

Street Journal, July 30, p. C10.
Iron Ore—2009 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 39.9

Fortescue Metals Group Ltd., 2009, China’s NDRC approves Valin investment: 

East Perth, Australia, Fortescue Metals Group Ltd. media release, April 22, 

2 p.

Gordon, Lisa, 2009, Labrador Iron purchases build ore holdings: American 

Metal Market, v. 117, no. 51–1, December 21, p. 7.

Great Lakes & Seaway Shipping News, 2009, Soo Locks close today, reopen 

March 25: Sault Ste. Marie, MI, Great Lakes & Seaway Shipping News, 

January 15. (Accessed January 10, 2011, via http://www.boatnerd.com/.)

Interfax Ltd.—Russia & CIS—Metals & Mining Weekly, 2009, Metalloinvest’s 

MGOK mining unit resumes production: Moscow, Russia, Interfax Ltd.—

Russia & CIS—Metals & Mining Weekly, v. xix, issue 1, January 15, p. 24. 

Lake Carriers’ Association, 2010a, 2009 Great Lakes iron ore total lowest since 

1938: Cleveland, OH, Lake Carriers’ Association news release, January 7, 

1 p.

Lake Carriers’ Association, 2010b, Iron ore shipments from Great Lakes and 

Seaway ports to Great Lakes destinations—Year-to-date 2004-2009 and 

5-year average: Cleveland, OH, Lake Carriers’ Association, January 7, 2 p.

Li, Hongmei, 2009, China seeks ‘reasonable’ 2009 iron ore price, says Cisa’s 

Shan: Metal Bulletin, no. 9079, January 5, p. 13.

Luossavaara-Kiirunavaara Aktiebolag, 2010, Annual report and sustainability 

report 2009: Luleå, Sweden, Luossavaara-Kiirunavaara Aktiebolag, 

March 26, 110 p.

Matthews, R.G., 2009a, Steel firms close in on cheaper iron ore: The Wall Street 

Journal, April 17, p. B3.

Matthews, R.G., 2009b, Vale—Miner to follow BHP, Rio in China ore-price 

deals: The Wall Street Journal, July 31, p. B4.

Metal Bulletin, 2009a, Australia: Metal Bulletin, no. 9125, November 23, p. 21.

Metal Bulletin, 2009b, Cisa sends representative to iron ore talks for the first 

time: Metal Bulletin, no. 9086, February 23, p. 14.

Metal Bulletin, 2009c, Cisa warns of surplus in Q4: Metal Bulletin, no. 9123, 

November 9, p. 22.

Metal Bulletin, 2009d, Iron ore association formed: Metal Bulletin, no. 9110, 

August 10, p. 26.

Metal Bulletin, 2009e, North America—Magnetation: Metal Bulletin, no. 9088, 

March 9, p. 17.

Metal Bulletin, 2009f, The single party system: Metal Bulletin, no. 9120, 

October 19, p. 3.

Midrex Technologies, Inc., 2010, 2009 World direct reduction statistics: 

Charlotte, NC, Midrex Technologies, Inc., 1st quarter, 12 p. (Accessed 

January 15, 2011, via http://www.midrex.com/.)

Mining Journal, 2009a, Bong deal queries: Mining Journal, February 27, p. 7.

Mining Journal, 2009b, Fortescue secures iron-ore benchmark: Mining Journal, 

August 21, p. 1.

Mining Journal, 2009c, Request for expression of interest—Hajigak iron 

deposit: Mining Journal, March 27, p. 23.

Mining Journal, 2009d, Saudi Arabia iron plan viable: Mining Journal, 

February 27, p. 9.

Mining Journal, 2009e, WISCO cleared for Australian iron-ore investment: 

Mining Journal, November 6, p. 4.

Minnesota Department of Revenue, 2009, 2009 Minnesota mining tax guide: 

Eveleth, MN, Minnesota Department of Revenue, November, 59 p.

Minnesota Department of Revenue, 2010, 2010 Minnesota mining tax guide: 

Eveleth, MN, Minnesota Department of Revenue, November, 59 p.

MMX Mineração e Metálicos S.A., 2009, Technical report of Serra Azul’s 

mineral resources: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, MMX Mineração e Metálicos S.A. 

news release, April 6, 1 p. (Accessed June 30, 2009, at http://mmx.infoinvest.

com.br/enu/1448/ComunicadoRelatorioSRK_ingFINAL.pdf.)

OJSC Magnitogorsk Iron & Steel Works, 2009, MMK starts production at its 

Sosnovsky iron ore deposit: OJSC Magnitogorsk Iron & Steel Works press 

release, August 11, 1 p. (Accessed August 13, 2009, via http://www.mmk.ru/.)

Redmon, Chris, 2009, The next iron rush: Fortune, v. 159, no. 11, May 25, 

p. 84–90.

Reuters, 2009, Xstrata moves into iron-ore with Congo-Rep project: Creamer 

Media (Pty) Ltd., November 24. (Accessed November 25, 2009, via http://

www.miningweekly.com/.)

Rio Tinto plc, 2010, 2009 annual report: London, United Kingdom, Rio Tinto 

plc, March 5, 237 p.

Ritchie, Martin, 2009, Hu’s arrest sends warning to suppliers to take care when 

doing business in China: Metal Bulletin, no. 9106, July 13, p. 18.

Rupert, James, and Najafizada, Eltafm, 2010, Afghanistan to scrap iron mine 

bids over ‘transparency’ issues: Bloomberg Businessweek, February 2. 

(Accessed January 18, 2011, at http://www.businessweek.com/news/

2010-02-02/afghanistan-to-scrap-iron-mine-bids-over-transparency-issues.

html.)

Skillings Mining Review, 2009a, BHP completes Rapid Growth Project 4: 

Skillings Mining Review, v. 98, no. 12, December, p. 9.

Skillings Mining Review, 2009b, Keetac workers get big let down: Skillings 

Mining Review, v. 98, no. 11, November, p. 6.

Skillings Mining Review, 2009c, Mesabi Nugget—A steady presence for the 

Range: Skillings Mining Review, v. 98, no. 12, December, p. 4–5.

Skillings Mining Review, 2009d, Minntac restarting production lines: Skillings 

Mining Review, v. 98, no. 9, September, p. 9.

Skillings Mining Review, 2009e, Northshore extends shutdown: Skillings 

Mining Review, v. 98, no. 6, June, p. 8.

Skillings Mining Review, 2009f, Shougang to invest $1 billion on Peruvian 

operation: Skillings Mining Review, v. 98, no. 3, March, p. 36.

Skillings Mining Review, 2010a, China finds 1 billion ton iron ore deposit: 

Skillings Mining Review, v. 99, no. 1, January, p. 12.

Skillings Mining Review, 2010b, 2010 North American iron ore roundup: 

Skillings Mining Review, v. 99, no. 7, July, p. 8, 12–15.

Skillings Mining Review, 2010c, 2010 North American iron ore roundup 

continued: Skillings Mining Review, v. 99, no. 8, August, p. 6, 7.

Steel Dynamics, Inc., 2010, Annual report 2009: Fort Wayne, IN, Steel 

Dynamics, Inc., April 9, 16 p. (Accessed May 17, 2010, via http://

www.steeldynamics.com/.)

TEX Report, The, 2009a, Australian HIsmelt plant placed on care, maintenance 

program: The TEX Report, v. 41, no. 9696, March 27, p. 4.

TEX Report, The, 2009b, Australia’s FIRB approves Gindalbie Metals’ share 

placement to Ansteel: The TEX Report, v. 41, no. 9725, May 13, p. 4.

TEX Report, The, 2009c, China’s May 09 iron ore imports go high at 53 Mt: 

The TEX Report, v. 41, no. 9747, June 12, p. 5.

TEX Report, The, 2009d, Chinese MOF raises VAT on imported iron ore: The 

TEX Report, v. 41, no. 9641, January 6, p. 1.

TEX Report, The, 2010, China’s iron ore imports in CY 2009: The TEX Report, 

v. 42, no. 9895, January 27, p. 7–8.

Thompson, Dionne, 2009, Rio settles with Japanese mills—Down 33% for fines 

and down 44% for lump: Metal Bulletin, no. 9100, June 1, p. 13.

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, 2010, The iron ore 

market—2009–2011: Geneva, Switzerland, United Nations Conference on 

Trade and Development, June, 121 p. 

United States Steel Corp., 2010, 2009 annual report and form 10–K: Pittsburgh, 

PA, United States Steel Corp., February 24, 99 p. and appendix. (Accessed 

May 18, 2010, via http://www.ussteel.com/.)

Vale S.A., 2009a, Vale adopts a new corporate name—Vale S.A.: Rio de Janeiro, 

Brazil, Vale S.A. news release, May 22, 1 p. (Accessed June 30, 2009, via 

http://www.vale.com/.)

Vale S.A., 2009b, Vale concludes the acquisition of Corumbá: Rio de Janeiro, 

Brazil, Vale S.A. press release, September 18, 1 p. (Accessed April 29, 2010, 

via http://www.vale.com/.)

Vale S.A., 2009c, Vale to acquire iron ore and potash assets: Rio de Janeiro, 

Brazil, Vale S.A. news release, January 30, 1 p. (Accessed May 22, 2009, via 

http://www.vale.com/.)

Vale S.A., 2010, Vale—2009 production report: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Vale 

S.A., February 10, 14 p. (Accessed June 22, 2010, via http://www.vale.com/.)

Wall Street Journal, The, 2009, Fortescue Metals to seek China financing: The 

Wall Street Journal, May 11, p. B6.

Welch, Katherine, 2009, Fortescue funds itself as Chinese deal fails: Mining 

Journal, October 16, p. 6.

Weik, Juan, 2009a, Venezuela HBI output set for doldrums in October on poor 

prices, technical hitches: Metal Bulletin, no. 9120, October 19, p. 17.

Weik, Juan, 2009b, Venezuela takes control of Matesi as commissions start work 

with three HBI producers: Metal Bulletin, no. 9112, August 24, p. 12.

Wilshaw, Blake, 2009, Concern over China’s investments: Mining Journal, 

February 27, p. 1.

Wilson, Alex, Oster, Shai, and Carew, Rick, 2009, Chinalco’s deal for Rio faces 

two new hurdles: The Wall Street Journal, February 13, p. B3.

GENERAL SOURCES OF INFORMATION

U.S. Geological Survey Publications

Iron. Ch. in United States Mineral Resources, Professional 

Paper 820, 1973.
39.10 [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2009

International Iron and Steel Institute.

Iron and Steel Society.

Iron Ore. Ch. in Mineral Facts and Problems, U.S. Bureau of 

Mines Bulletin 675, 1985.

Natural Resources Canada.

Roskill Information Services Ltd. reports.

Skillings Minnesota Mining Directory, annual.

TEX Report, The, and Iron Ore Manual, annual.

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development: 

Trust Fund Project on Iron Ore Information.

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration.

U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health 

Administration.

TABLe 1

SALIenT Iron ore STATISTICS1

(Thousand metric tons and thousand dollars unless otherwise specified)

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

United States, iron ore, usable, less than 5% manganese:2

Production 54,300 52,700 52,500 53,600 26,700

Shipments:

Quantity 53,200 52,700 50,900 53,600 r 27,600

Value 2,370,000 2,840,000 3,040,000 3,770,000 2,560,000

Average value at mines dollars per metric ton 44.50 53.88 59.64 70.43 92.76

exports:

Quantity 11,800 8,270 9,310 11,100 3,920

Value 584,000 636,000 718,000 1,240,000 356,000

Imports for consumption:

Quantity 13,000 11,500 9,400 9,250 3,870

Value 532,000 611,000 543,000 918,000 376,000

Consumption, iron ore and agglomerates 60,100 58,200 54,700 51,900 31,000

Stocks, December 31:

At mines, plants and loading docks3 2,040 1,650 4 2,090 4 4,070 4 5,060 4

At receiving docks5 (6) (6) (6) (6) (6)

At consuming plants (6) (6) (6) (6) (6)

Total7 (6) (6) (6) (6) (6)

Additional stocks, December 31:

Crude ore at mines and plants 915 1,140 4 749 4 947 4 580 4

Unagglomerated concentrates for pelletizing plants 1,870 1,260 1,550 1,320 896

World, production8 1,550,000 1,840,000 2,040,000 2,210,000 r 2,240,000 e

e

estimated. rrevised.

1

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

2

Direct-shipping ore, concentrates, agglomerates, and byproduct ore.

3

excludes byproduct ore.

4

Crude ore stocks and unagglomerated concentrates for pelletizing plants removed. Marketable stocks only.

5

Transfer and/or receiving docks of lower Great Lake ports.

6

American Iron and Steel Institute no longer collects this data as of 2004.

7

Sum of stocks at mines, consuming plants, and U.S. docks.

8

Gross weight.

Iron Ore. Ch. in Metal Prices in the United States Through 1998, 

U.S. Geological Survey Special Publication, 1999.

Iron Ore. Ch. in Mineral Commodity Summaries, annual.

Iron Ore. Mineral Industry Surveys, monthly.

Other

American Metal Market.

Association of Iron and Steel Engineers.

Company annual reports to stockholders and 10–K reports to 

Securities and Exchange Commission.

Engineering and Mining Journal.

Institute on Lake Superior Geology.
Iron Ore—2009 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 39.11

TABLe 2

eMPLoYMenT AT Iron ore MIneS AnD BeneFICIATInG PLAnTS, QUAnTITY AnD Tenor oF ore ProDUCeD, AnD AVerAGe

oUTPUT Per WorKer HoUr In THe UnITeD STATeS In 2009, BY DISTrICT AnD STATe1

Production

Iron contained Iron Average quantity per worker hour

Average Crude ore Usable ore in usable ore content (metric tons)

number of Worker hours (thousand (thousand (thousand natural Iron

District and State employees (thousands) metric tons) metric tons) metric tons) (percent) Crude ore Usable ore contained

Lake Superior:

Michigan2 1,170 2,430 21,800 8,300 5,000 60.3 8.96 3.41 2.06

Minnesota 2,300 4,430 59,000 18,400 11,500 62.8 13.32 4.15 2.61

Total or average 3,470 6,860 80,800 26,700 16,500 62.0 11.78 3.89 2.41

other States3 56 116 14 14 8 54.0 0.12 0.12 0.07

Grand total or average 3,530 6,980 80,800 26,700 16,500 62.0 11.58 3.83 2.37

1

Data are rounded to no more than three significant digits, except “Average per worker hour, crude ore” may not add to totals shown.

2

Does not include professional or clerical workers at mines, pelletizing plants, maintenance shops, or research lab workers.

3

Includes California and South Dakota.

TABLe 3

CrUDe Iron ore MIneD In THe UnITeD STATeS In 2009, BY DISTrICT,

STATe, AnD MInInG MeTHoD1, 2

open pit Underground Total

number (thousand (thousand (thousand

District and State of mines metric tons) metric tons) metric tons)

Lake Superior:

Michigan 2 21,800 -- 21,800

Minnesota 6 59,000 -- 59,000

Total 8 80,800 -- 80,800

other States 4 14 -- 14

Grand total 12 80,800 -- 80,800

-- Zero.

1

Includes some byproduct ore. excludes ore containing 5% or more manganese.

2

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

totals shown.
39.12 [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2009

TABLe 4

USABLe Iron ore ProDUCeD In THe UnITeD STATeS In 2009, BY DISTrICT,

STATe, AnD TYPe oF ProDUCT1, 2

(Thousand metric tons)

Direct other

District and State shipping ore Concentrates Sinter agglomerates3 Total

Lake Superior:

Michigan 2 -- -- 8,300 8,300

Minnesota -- 271 65 18,000 18,400

Total 2 271 65 26,300 26,700

other States4 -- 14 -- -- 14

Grand total 2 285 65 26,300 26,700

-- Zero.

1

excludes ore containing 5% or more manganese.

2

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

3

Data may include pellet chips, screenings, and sinter.

4

Includes California and South Dakota.

TABLe 5

SHIPMenTS oF USABLe Iron ore FroM MIneS In THe UnITeD STATeS In 20091, 2

Average

Gross weight of ore shipped iron

(thousand metric tons) content,

Direct other natural Value

District and State shipping ore Concentrates Sinter agglomerates Total (percent) (thousands)

Lake Superior:

Michigan 2 -- -- 8,870 3 8,870 3 60.3 W

Minnesota -- 271 77 18,400 18,700 62.8 W

Total reportable or average 2 271 77 27,200 27,600 62.0 $2,560,000

other States4 -- 14 -- -- 14 54.0 921

Grand total or average 2 285 77 27,200 27,600 62.0 2,560,000

 W Withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data; included in “Total reportable or average.” -- Zero.

1

Includes byproduct ore. excludes ore containing 5% or more manganese.

2

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

3

Source reported to Securities and exchange Commission.

4

Includes California and South Dakota.
Iron Ore—2009 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 39.13

TABLe 6

Iron ore-ProDUCInG MIneS In THe UnITeD STATeS In 2009

State and mine County operator Source of iron ore

California:

Baxter Mine San Bernardino Hahm International Inc. Quarried ore.

Dredge 21 Yuba Cal Sierra Development Inc. Dredged sands.

Silverlake Mine San Bernardino Hahm International Inc. Quarried ore.

Michigan:

empire Marquette Cliffs natural resources Inc. Magnetite taconite ore.

Tilden do. do. Hematite-magnetite taconite ore.

Minnesota:

Hibbing Taconite Saint Louis do. Magnetite taconite ore.

Keewatin Taconite do. United States Steel Corporation Do.

Mesabi Chief Plant do. Magnetation, Inc. Hematite tailings.

Minntac do. United States Steel Corporation Magnetite taconite ore.

Minorca do. ArcelorMittal Do.

northshore do. Cliffs natural resources Inc. Do.

United Taconite do. do. Do.

South Dakota, CF & I Pit Lawrence Pete Lien & Sons Inc. Quarried ore.

Do., do. Ditto. 

TABLe 7

ConSUMPTIon oF Iron ore AT U.S. Iron

AnD STeeL PLAnTS, BY TYPe oF ProDUCT1

(Thousand metric tons)

Type of product 2008 2009

Blast furnaces:

Direct-shipping ore -- --

Pellets 43,800 26,200

Sinter2 6,380 3,720

Total 50,200 29,900

Steelmaking furnaces:

Direct-shipping ore 465 327

Sinter2 118 91

Total 583 417

Grand total 50,700 30,400

 -- Zero.

1

Data are rounded to no more than three significant

digits; may not add to totals shown.

2

Includes briquettes, nodules, and other.

Source: American Iron and Steel Institute.
39.14 [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2009

TABLe 8

U.S. ConSUMPTIon oF Iron ore For 

DIreCT-reDUCeD Iron AnD nonSTeeL enD USeS1, 2

(Thousand metric tons)

Direct-reduced

iron for nonsteel

Year steelmaking3 end uses4 Total

2005 330 928 1,260

2006 360 867 1,230

2007 375 699 1,070

2008 390 734 1,120

2009 -- 603 603

 -- Zero.

1

Data are rounded to no more than three significant digits; 

may not add to totals shown.

2

Includes agglomerates. excludes ore containing 5% or more 

manganese.

3

U.S. Geological Survey estimates based on production 

reports compiled by Midrex Corp.

4

An estimate, which includes iron ore consumed in production 

of cement and iron ore shipped for use in manufacturing 

paint, ferrites, heavy media, cattle feed, refractory and 

weighing materials, and for use in lead smelting. 

TABLe 9

U.S. eXPorTS oF Iron ore, BY CoUnTrY oF DeSTInATIon1, 2

(Thousand metric tons and thousand dollars)

2008 2009

Country Quantity Value Quantity Value

Algeria 80 $7,690 -- --

Belgium 218 20,900 194 $18,600

Canada 9,030 r 1,020,000 3,060 276,000

China 91 7,210 99 5,800

Colombia 12 946 20 1,210

Czech republic 83 7,930 -- --

France 210 20,100 179 17,200

Germany 156 14,900 234 22,400

Malaysia 25 499 1 60

Mexico 328 43,200 70 8,730

Poland 103 9,890 -- --

romania 129 12,400 -- --

Serbia 51 7,850 -- --

Slovakia 505 61,700 -- --

South Africa -- -- 53 5,050

Spain 103 9,770 -- --

Sweden 4 291 6 427

other3 13 1,620 r 6 442

Total 11,100 r 1,240,000 r 3,920 356,000

 rrevised. -- Zero.

1

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

2

Includes agglomerates.

3

Includes all countries with less than 5,000 metric tons of exports from the United

States in 2008 and 2009. This represents 13 countries in 2008 and 16 countries in 2009.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.
Iron Ore—2009 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 39.15

TABLe 10

U.S. eXPorTS oF Iron ore, BY TYPe oF ProDUCT1, 2

2008 2009

Unit Unit

Quantity value3, 4 Quantity value3, 4

(thousand Value (dollars per (thousand Value (dollars per

Type of product metric tons) (thousands) metric ton) metric tons) (thousands) metric ton)

Concentrates 142 $13,000 91.24 123 $7,850 63.84

Coarse ores 45 1,160 25.63 4 182 45.50

Fine ores 136 r 12,500 r 91.71 r 25 1,560 62.52

Pellets 10,800 1,220,000 112.64 3,760 346,000 92.10

Briquettes (5) 4 79.15 3 259 86.33

other agglomerates 19 1,100 13.37 (5) 22 80.00

roasted pyrites 1 102 90.66 1 71 71.00

Total 11,100 r 1,240,000 r 111.67 r 3,920 356,000 90.97

r

revised. 

1

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

2

Includes agglomerates.

3

Unit values shown are calculated from unrounded data.

4

Weighted average calculated from unrounded data by dividing total value by total tonnage.

5

Less than 1⁄2 unit.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.
39.16 [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2009

TABLe 11

U.S. IMPorTS oF Iron ore, BY CoUnTrY AnD TYPe oF ProDUCT1, 2

2008 2009

Unit Unit

Quantity value3, 4 Quantity value3, 4

Country and (thousand Value (dollars per (thousand Value (dollars per

type of product metric tons) (thousands) metric ton) metric tons) (thousands) metric ton)

Country:

Bosnia and Herzegovina 23 $1,570 68.43 -- -- --

Brazil 2,620 216,000 82.45 188 $13,100 69.65

Canada 5,900 645,000 109.35 3,140 323,000 102.70

Chile 215 16,800 78.25 203 16,100 79.14

China 14 266 19.00 (5) 2 33.33

Finland 6 233 38.83 6 367 61.17

Mexico 52 4,290 82.56 55 4,610 83.73

Peru 59 3,100 52.59 34 1,670 49.03

russia 127 16,000 126.06 136 8,240 60.60

South Africa -- -- -- 43 2,980 69.23

Sweden 88 4,540 51.59 31 3,190 102.74

Switzerland 70 5,410 77.29 -- -- --

United Kingdom -- -- -- 8 1,630 203.75

Venezuela 68 4,210 61.85 21 825 39.29

other6 4 185 98.92 8 224 39.75

Total 9,250 918,000 99.26 3,870 376,000 96.97

Type of product:

Concentrates 1,250 92,200 73.79 283 22,300 78.95

Coarse ores 48 1,970 41.10 16 2,330 145.50

Fine ores 1,980 149,000 75.59 466 34,900 74.91

Pellets 5,960 674,000 113.03 3,100 315,000 101.90

Briquettes 1 97 97.00 4 159 39.75

other agglomerates -- -- -- 3 104 34.67

roasted pyrites 12 537 44.75 6 367 61.17

Total 9,250 918,000 99.26 3,870 376,000 96.97

 -- Zero.

1

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

2

Includes agglomerates.

3

Unit values shown are calculated from unrounded data.

4

Weighted average calculated from unrounded data by dividing total value by total tonnage.

5

Less than 1⁄2 unit.

6

Includes four countries with less than 5,000 metric tons of imports to the United States in both 2008 and 2009. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.
Iron Ore—2009 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 39.17

TABLe 12

U.S. IMPorTS oF Iron ore In 2009, BY CoUnTrY AnD TYPe oF ProDUCT1, 2

(Thousand metric tons)

Briquettes

Coarse Fine and other roasted

Country of origin Concentrates ores ores Pellets agglomerates pyrites Total

Brazil -- -- 150 38 -- -- 188

Canada -- -- 245 2,900 -- -- 3,140

Chile 198 -- 5 -- -- -- 203

Finland -- -- -- -- -- 6 6

Mexico 52 -- -- -- 3 -- 55

Peru -- -- 29 5 -- -- 34

russia -- -- -- 136 -- -- 136

South Africa 33 8 2 -- -- -- 43

Sweden -- -- 31 -- -- -- 31

United Kingdom -- 8 -- -- -- -- 8

Venezuela -- -- -- 21 -- -- 21

other3 -- (4) 4 -- 4 -- 8

Total 283 16 466 3,100 7 6 3,870

-- Zero.

1

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

2

Includes agglomerates.

3

Includes all countries with less than 5,000 metric tons of imports to the United States. This represents three countries.

4

Less than 1⁄2 unit.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

TABLe 13

AVerAGe UnIT VALUe For SeLeCTeD IMPorTS oF Iron ore In 20091

Average unit value2

(dollars per metric ton,

Type of product Country of origin gross weight)

Concentrates Chile 79.53

Do. Mexico 86.33

Do. South Africa 64.28

Fine ores Brazil 63.96

Do. Canada 82.29

Do. Peru 47.97

Do. Sweden 102.12

Pellets Brazil 93.23

Do. Canada 104.44

Do. russia 60.68

 Do. Ditto.

1

Includes agglomerates.

2

Weighted averages of individual customs values.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.
39.18 [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2009

Customs district Quantity Value Quantity Value

Baltimore, MD 3,590 $338,000 781 $67,400

Buffalo, nY 1 43 -- --

Charleston, SC 28 647 6 151

Chicago, IL 1,160 81,600 637 45,000

Cleveland, oH 3,160 384,000 1,860 213,000

Detroit, MI (3) 4 -- --

Houston-Galveston, TX 51 5,870 38 3,510

Los Angeles, CA -- -- (3) 1

Minneapolis, Mn 103 9,660 -- --

Mobile, AL 74 4,570 28 2,270

new orleans, LA 1,020 91,400 465 41,400

new York, nY 1 28 -- --

nogales, AZ -- -- 3 175

norfolk, VA 10 649 -- --

ogdensburg, nY 12 223 18 325

Philadelphia, PA 6 249 6 367

Port Arthur, TX -- -- 8 1,630

Seattle, WA -- -- 28 513

Tampa, FL 24 1,490 -- --

Total 9,250 918,000 3,870 376,000

-- Zero.

2

Includes agglomerates.

3

Less than 1⁄2 unit.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

2008 2009

TABLe 14

U.S. IMPorTS oF Iron ore, BY CUSToMS DISTrICT1, 2

(Thousand metric tons and thousand dollars)

1

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

TABLe 15

U.S. IMPorTS oF PeLLeTS, BY CoUnTrY1

(Thousand metric tons and thousand dollars)

2008 2009

Country Quantity Value Quantity Value

Bosnia and Herzegovina 23 $1,570 -- --

Brazil 616 65,600 38 $3,510

Canada 5,240 602,000 2,900 303,000

Peru 18 736 5 283

russia -- -- 136 8,240

Venezuela 68 4,210 21 825

Total 5,960 674,000 3,100 315,000

-- Zero.

1

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

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.
Iron Ore—2009 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 39.19

TABLe 16

SeLeCTeD PrICeS For Iron ore In THe JAPAneSe MArKeT1

(Cents per dry long ton unit of iron unless otherwise specified)

April 1-March 31

Country and producer ore types Fiscal year 2008 Fiscal year 2009

Australia:

Hamersley Iron Proprietary Limited and Mount newman Mining Company

Proprietary Limited2 Lump ore 201.69 112.00

Do.2 Fines 144.66 97.00

robe river Iron Associates2 do. 115.30 77.31

BHP Billiton (Yandi)2 do. 144.66 97.00

Fortescue Metals Group do. nA 94.00

Brazil:

Companhia nipo-Brasileira de Pelotizacao (nibrasco)2 Pellets 213.59 110.43

 Vale S.A. (Carajás)2 Fines 125.17 89.87

 Vale S.A. (Itabira)2 do. 118.98 85.43

Mineraçoes Brasileiras reunidas Societe Anonyme Lump ore 181.78 100.94

Do. Fines nA nA

Samarco Mineracâo Societe Anonyme Pellets 213.59 3 110.43 3

Canada, Iron ore Company of Canada (Carol Lake) Concentrates 117.27 84.20

Chile:

Minera del Pacifico Societe Anonyme (Huasco) Pellets 104.99 nA

Minera del Pacifico Societe Anonyme (el romeral) Fines 93.65 67.24

India:

Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation (Bailadila) Lump ore 198.68 110.33

Do. Fines 141.12 94.62

Peru, Shougang Hierro Peru S.A.A. Pellet feed 92.47 66.39

South Africa:

Kumba resources Limited (Iscor) Lump ore 165.89 92.12

Assmang Limited do. 163.92 91.02

Do. Fines 108.05 72.45

Venezuela, Corporación Venezolana de Guayana2 Pellet feed 94.28 67.69

Do., do. Ditto. nA not available.

1

Free on board shipping port basis.

2

Cents per dry metric ton unit.

3

Blast furnace grade pellets.

Sources: Trust Fund Project on Iron ore Information, Iron ore Statistics–october 2010. The TeX report, Iron ore Manual 2009.
39.20 [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2009 Country5 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009e 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009e Algeria 1,579 2,340 1,982 2,077 2,000 800 e 1,180 1,000 e 1,050 1,040 Australia 262,000 275,000 299,000 342,000 394,000 163,000 171,000 r 194,000 r 209,000 228,000 Austria 2,048 2,093 r 2,153 2,033 r 1,500 665 r 669 r 689 r 650 r 480 Azerbaijan 7 11 18 r 28 r -- 6 4 e 6 e 9 e 14 r, e -- Bosnia and Herzegovina 3,177 3,440 2,944 2,667 r 2,600 1,500 1,450 1,240 1,200 r, e 1,100 Brazil 281,462 317,800 354,674 351,246 r 300,000 p, 6 186,891 211,020 235,504 r 233,200 r 199,200 p, 6 Canada7 30,387 33,543 32,744 31,273 31,700 19,333 21,341 20,800 19,700 e 19,700 Chile 7,862 8,628 8,818 9,316 8,242 6 4,707 5,235 5,379 5,670 5,006 6 Chinae, 8 420,000 601,000 707,000 824,000 880,000 138,000 198,000 233,000 270,000 280,000 Colombia 608 644 624 475 r 500 325 351 350 200 r 200 egypte 1,590 1,600 2,185 6 1,811 6 1,800 800 800 1,100 910 900 Germany9 362 412 422 455 r 350 38 44 44 48 r, e 37 Greecee, 10 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 575 575 575 575 570 Guatemala 11 7 31 r (11) r 5 6 7 r, e 5 r, e 20 r, e (11) r, e 4 Indiae 152,000 181,000 202,000 220,000 245,000 97,500 117,000 129,000 142,000 157,000 Indonesia 32 88 61 65 e 63 18 50 35 37 e 36 Irane, 12 19,000 26,244 6 31,538 6 32,000 33,000 9,000 13,000 15,000 15,000 16,000 Kazakhstan 19,471 22,263 23,834 22,700 e 22,290 6 11,100 12,700 13,600 13,000 e 12,800 Kenyae (11) 6 (11) (11) (11) (11) (11) 6 (11) (11) (11) (11) Korea, northe 5,000 5,040 5,130 5,136 r, 6 5,000 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,488 r, 6 1,400 Korea, republic of 213 227 291 366 r 360 6 119 155 163 205 r 200 Macedoniae 10 10 -- -- 6 -- 6 6 -- -- 6 -- Malaysia 950 667 802 982 r 950 541 e 380 e 457 e 560 r, e 532 Mauritania 11,133 10,658 11,817 11,200 r 10,400 6 7,240 r 7,250 r 7,700 r 7,280 r 6,760 Mexico13 11,687 10,983 10,916 11,688 11,600 7,012 6,590 6,550 7,013 7,000 Mongolia 168 180 265 1,387 1,000 109 116 170 888 600 Moroccoe 10 10 10 10 10 5 5 5 5 5 new Zealand14 2,270 2,146 1,723 2,020 r 2,000 1,260 e 1,220 e 982 e 1,200 r, e 1,200 nigeriae 60 88 6 58 6 62 6 50 22 32 21 23 16 norway 620 620 620 668 r 711 6 420 420 400 e 430 e 460 Pakistan15 50 130 207 250 270 25 65 104 125 e 135 Peru 6,810 7,138 r 7,614 r 7,823 r 6,698 6 4,638 r 4,862 r 5,186 r 5,244 r 4,490 6 Portugale, 16 14 14 14 14 r 14 10 10 10 10 r 10 romania 265 123 45 -- r -- 69 40 11 -- r -- See footnotes at end of table. TABLe 17 Iron ore: WorLD ProDUCTIon, BY CoUnTrY1, 2 (Thousand metric tons) Gross weight3 Metal content4
Iron 

Ore—2009 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 39.21

Country5 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009e 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009e

russia 96,764 102,000 105,000 99,900 92,000 6 56,100 e 59,100 e 60,800 e 57,800 e 53,200

Slovakia 534 583 570 392 390 182 198 194 133 130

South Africa17 39,542 41,326 42,083 r 48,983 55,313 6 25,000 e 26,100 e 26,600 e 31,000 e 35,600

Swedene 23,300 23,300 24,700 23,800 6 17,700 15,300 15,000 16,000 14,280 r, 6 11,500Thailand 231 264 1,555 1,710 r 1,700 116 132 779 r 855 r 855

Tunisia 206 214 180 r 108 r 110 108 e 112 e 94 56 r 57

Turkey 4,598 3,785 4,849 4,700 e 4,000 2,450 2,000 e 2,600 2,500 e 2,100

Ukraine 68,570 74,000 77,900 72,700 e 66,476 6 37,700 e 40,700 e 42,800 e 40,000 r, e 36,500

United Kingdom (11) (11) (11) e (11) -- (11) (11) (11) e (11) --

United States 54,329 52,749 52,489 53,560 26,696 6 34,202 33,274 33,068 33,769 16,550 6

Venezuelae 21,200 22,100 20,700 20,650 6 14,900 14,000 14,500 13,600 13,600 9,800

Vietnam 1,009 1,020 1,060 e 1,000 e 1,000 505 510 530 e 530 e 530

Zimbabwe 377 104 100 e 50 e -- 200 e 52 e 50 e 25 e --

Total 1,550,000 1,840,000 2,040,000 2,210,000 r 2,240,000 843,000 969,000 1,070,000 1,130,000 1,110,000

14Concentrates from titaniferous magnetite beach sands.15Pakistan iron ore is based on a July-to-July fiscal year and 50% of production is used from each reported year.16Includes manganiferous iron ore.17Includes magnetite ore as follows, in thousand metric tons: 2005—2,957; 2006—3,830; 2007—3,781; 2008—3,987; and 2009—4,725.11Less than 1⁄2 unit.8China’s gross weight iron ore production figures are significantly higher than that of other countries, because China reports crude ore production only with an average iron content of 33%, whereas other 

countries report production of usable ore.

9Iron ore is used domestically as an additive in cement and other construction materials but is of too low a grade to use in the steel industry.10nickeliferous iron ore.12Data are for year beginning March 21 of that stated.13Gross weight calculated from reported iron content based on grade of 60% iron.

 imported iron ores have been excluded under the assumption that the ore from which such materials are produced has been credited as marketable ore in the country where it was mined.

4Data represent actual reported weight of contained metal or are calculated from reported metal content. estimated figures are based on latest available iron content reported, except for the following 

countries for which grades are U.S. Geological Survey estimates: Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, north Korea, and Ukraine.

5In addition to the countries listed, Cuba may also produce iron ore, but definitive information on output levels, if any, is not available.6reported figure.7Series represented gross weight and metal content of usable iron ore (including byproduct ore) actually produced, natural weight.

Gross weight3 Metal content4

eestimated. pPreliminary. rrevised. -- Zero.

1estimated data and world totals are rounded to no more than three significant digits; may not add to totals shown.2Table includes data available through July 22, 2010.3Insofar as availability of sources permit, gross weight in this table represent the nonduplicative sum of marketable direct-shipping iron ores and iron ore concentrates; iron agglomerates produced from

TABLe 17—Continued

Iron ore: WorLD ProDUCTIon, BY CoUnTrY1, 2

(Thousand metric tons)
39.22 [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2009

TABLe 18

Iron ore: WorLD PeLLeTIZInG CAPACITY, 

BY ConTInenT AnD CoUnTrY In 20091

 rated capacity,

gross weight

(million metric tons)

north America:

Canada 27.5

Mexico 15.0 e

United States 56.6

Total 99.1

South America:

Brazil 56.0 e

Chile 5.3 r

Peru 3.5

Venezuela 11.8 e

Total 76.6

europe and Central eurasia:

Kazakhstan 8.4 e

netherlands 4.4 e

russia 31.4 e

Slovakia 0.4

Sweden 21.0

Turkey 1.5

Ukraine 33.5 e

Total 100.6

Asia:

Bahrain 4.0

China 45.0 e

India 26.7 r

Iran 12.3 e

Japan 3.0

Total 91.0

oceania, Australia 4.3

Grand total 371.6

e

estimated. rrevised.

1

Data may not add to totals shown because of independent rounding.

Sources: International Iron and Steel Institute; United

nations Commission on Trade and Development, Trust

Fund on Iron ore Information; U.S. Geological Survey.