U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Aluminum

Antimony

Arsenic

Beryllium

Bismuth

Cadmium

Cesium

Chromium

Cobalt

Copper

Gallium

Germanium

Gold

Hafnium

Indium

Iron and Steel

Iron and Steel Scrap

Iron Ore

Lead

Lithium

Magnesium

Manganese

Mercury

Molybdenum

Nickel

Niobium

Platinum-Group Metals

Rare-Earth Metals

Rhenium

Rubidium

Selenium

Silicon

Silver

Tantalum

Tellurium

Thallium

Tin

Titanium

Tungsten

Vanadium

Zinc

Zirconium

Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5188

Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

By U.S. Geological Survey National Minerals Information Center staff

Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5188

U.S. Department of the Interior

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

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Marcia K. McNutt, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2013

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

resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS.

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, 

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov

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

U.S. Government.

Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials 

as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner.

Suggested citation:

U.S. Geological Survey, 2013, Metal prices in the United States through 2010: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2012–5188, 204 p., available only at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/5188.
iii

Contents

Introduction and Acknowledgments ..........................................................................................................1

Aluminum (Al) .................................................................................................................................................2

Antimony (Sb) .................................................................................................................................................7

Arsenic (As) ..................................................................................................................................................10

Beryllium (Be)...............................................................................................................................................13

Bismuth (Bi)...................................................................................................................................................17

Cadmium (Cd)................................................................................................................................................22

Cesium (Cs) ...................................................................................................................................................25

Chromium (Cr)...............................................................................................................................................28

Cobalt (Co).....................................................................................................................................................37

Copper (Cu) ...................................................................................................................................................45

Gallium (Ga)...................................................................................................................................................52

Germanium (Ge) ...........................................................................................................................................55

Gold (Au)........................................................................................................................................................58

Hafnium (Hf)..................................................................................................................................................63

Indium (In) .....................................................................................................................................................66

Iron and Steel (Fe)........................................................................................................................................69

Iron and Steel Scrap (Fe) ............................................................................................................................73

Iron Ore (Fe)..................................................................................................................................................76

Lead (Pb)........................................................................................................................................................81

Lithium (Li).....................................................................................................................................................85

Magnesium (Mg)..........................................................................................................................................88

Manganese (Mn)..........................................................................................................................................93

Mercury (Hg).................................................................................................................................................98

Molybdenum (Mo)......................................................................................................................................101

Nickel (Ni)....................................................................................................................................................105

Niobium (Columbium) (Nb) .......................................................................................................................114

Platinum-Group Metals (Ir, Os, Pd, Pt, Rh, Ru) ......................................................................................119

Rare-Earth Metals (Ce, Dy, Eu, Gd, La, Nd, Pr, Sm, Sc, Tb, Y) .............................................................133

Rhenium (Re)...............................................................................................................................................152

Rubidium (Rb)..............................................................................................................................................155

Selenium (Se)..............................................................................................................................................158

Silicon (Si) ...................................................................................................................................................161

Silver (Ag)....................................................................................................................................................167

Tantalum (Ta) ..............................................................................................................................................171

Tellurium (Te) ..............................................................................................................................................175

Thallium (Tl).................................................................................................................................................178

Tin (Sn).........................................................................................................................................................181

Titanium (Ti).................................................................................................................................................184

Tungsten (W)...............................................................................................................................................187

Vanadium (V)...............................................................................................................................................194

Zinc (Zn).......................................................................................................................................................197
iv

Zirconium (Zr) .............................................................................................................................................201

Appendix 1. Price Deflators..................................................................................................................204
Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

By U.S. Geological Survey National Minerals Information Center staff

Introduction and Acknowledgments

This report, which updates and revises the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) (1999) publication, “Metal Prices 

in the United States Through 1998,” presents an extended 

price history for a wide range of metals available in a single 

document. Such information can be useful for the analysis 

of mineral commodity issues, as well as for other purposes. 

The chapter for each mineral commodity includes a graph of 

annual current and constant dollar prices for 1970 through 

2010, where available; a list of significant events that affected 

prices; a brief discussion of the metal and its history; and one 

or more tables that list current dollar prices.

In some cases, the metal prices presented herein are for 

some alternative form of an element or, instead of a price, 

a value, such as the value for an import as appraised by the 

U.S. Customs Service. Also included are the prices for steel, 

steel scrap, and iron ore—steel because of its importance to 

the elements used to alloy with it, and steel scrap and iron ore 

because of their use in steelmaking. A few minor metals, such 

as calcium, potassium, sodium, strontium, and thorium, for 

which price histories were insufficient, were excluded.

The annual prices given may be averages for the year, 

yearend prices, or some other price as appropriate for a 

particular commodity. Certain trade journals have been the 

source of much of this price information—American Metal 

Market, ICIS Chemical Business, Engineering and Mining 

Journal, Industrial Minerals, Metal Bulletin, Mining Journal, 

Platts Metals Week, Roskill Information Services Ltd. 

commodity reports, and Ryan’s Notes. Price information also 

is available in minerals information publications of the USGS 

(1880–1925, 1996–present) and the U.S. Bureau of Mines 

(1926–95), such as Mineral Commodity Summaries, Mineral 

Facts and Problems, Mineral Industry Surveys, and Minerals 

Yearbook. In addition to prices themselves, these journals and 

publications contain information relevant to prices, which has 

been helpful in the preparation of this publication.

Prices in this report have been graphed in 1992 constant 

dollars to show the effects of inflation as measured by the 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index for All 

Urban Consumers, a widely used measure of overall inflation 

in the United States. These prices are not tabulated, but a table 

of the deflators used is given in an appendix. Constant dollar 

prices can be used to show how prices that producers receive 

would have less purchasing power.

The individual chapters in this publication were 

prepared by mineral commodity specialists in the National 

Minerals Information Center of the USGS and edited by 

Marilyn Billone. Kenneth Beckman provided guidance on 

price indexes.

Reference Cited

U.S. Geological Survey, 1999, Metal prices in the United 

States through 1998: U.S. Geological Survey, 179 p.
2 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

Aluminum (Al)

by E. Lee Bray

Aluminum metal was first isolated by Hans Christian 

Oersted in 1825. As late as the early 1880s, it was considered to be a semiprecious metal and was sold in troy-ounce 

quantities; the retail price of aluminum metal was reported 

to be higher than that of silver. A commercially viable largescale production method had yet to be developed. Domestic 

production levels during this period were in the 1,000-to3,000-troy-ounce range, and many uses were considered to be 

experimental (Mining Engineering, 1987).

In 1886, formal patent applications were filed for the 

electrolytic reduction process for aluminum. This process, 

which came to be known as the Hall-Heroult process, led 

to the mass commercial production of aluminum metal. As 

the process was developed and refined, production levels 

increased rapidly. By 1895, domestic production levels had 

reached 1 million pounds. As production levels continued to 

increase, domestic producers kept the price of aluminum low 

to encourage its use by consumers. In the early 1900s, producers held aluminum metal prices at a low, steady level to compete against copper in the electrical industry (U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 1956, p. II.1–II.4).

With the outbreak of World War I in Europe in 1914, 

shortages of aluminum metal began to develop, and prices 

began to rise dramatically because of the increased demand 

for aluminum in war materials, which included airplanes and 

munitions. In March 1918, the President imposed price controls on aluminum metal, and the use of aluminum for military 

equipment and essential civilian needs was placed under 

Government regulation (Hill, 1921).

The 1920s saw the demand for aluminum metal expand, 

especially in the growing domestic automobile industry. The 

advent of the Great Depression, however, brought about a 

general decrease in demand for aluminum in all sectors of the 

economy, especially in the automobile and aircraft industries.

In 1939, the production and consumption of aluminum 

shattered all previous records, enhanced by the preparations 

for national defense and the expanding conflicts in Europe and 

Asia. The aviation industry alone consumed twice the quantity of aluminum as in 1937, the previous peak year. In 1940, 

producers lowered the price of aluminum to enable the metal 

to compete better with other materials. During the war years, 

aluminum prices were placed under formal control and held 

at $0.15 per pound (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1956, 

p. IV.6).

After the war, the aluminum industry benefited from its 

price advantage compared to copper and other nonferrous 

metals. Aluminum, which was cheaper and more readily available than some other metals, was used in new applications and 

made substantial inroads in the construction and transportation 

industries.

Rearmament programs during the Korean conflict 

increased the demand for aluminum. In 1951, the allocation 

of aluminum supplies and the price of aluminum metal 

were again placed under Government control (Blue, 1954, 

p. 137–138). At the end of the conflict, domestic aluminum 

producers began an aggressive program to develop civilian 

uses for aluminum metal.

During the 1960s, aluminum prices remained relatively 

stable in the low- to mid-$0.20-per-pound range. Production 

capacity increases were able to keep pace with the continuous 

growth in demand during this period.

In the early 1970s, the price of aluminum, as well as of 

other metals, was controlled by the Cost of Living Council in 

an attempt to check inflation. As these controls were gradually removed during 1974, prices rose to reflect the increased 

cost of energy brought about by the surge in world oil prices 

(fig. 1; table 1).

In the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s, aluminum 

prices, for the most part, reflected market supply and demand. 

During the early 1980s, the aluminum industry suffered from 

a period of oversupply, high inventories, excess production capacity, and weak demand, causing aluminum prices 

to tumble. By 1987, however, excess production capacity 

had been permanently closed, inventories were low, and the 

worldwide demand for aluminum increased with increasing 

use of aluminum in automobile parts and beverage cans. This 

extremely tight supply situation, which continued throughout 

1987 and 1988, brought about a dramatic increase in aluminum prices.

During the 1990s, however, the speculative effect of 

the futures market began to exert its influence on aluminum 

prices. Prices were not only reacting to the supply-anddemand situation but also to the perceived direction of the 

market as reflected on the futures exchanges.

In the early 1990s, the major influence on aluminum 

prices was the dissolution of the Soviet Union. To generate 

hard currency, large quantities of Russian aluminum ingot 

entered the world market. Unfortunately, the aluminum market 

had just entered an economic downturn and was unable to 

absorb the Russian material. This period of oversupply, 

decreasing demand, and increasing inventories depressed 

world aluminum prices.

By the mid-1990s, production cutbacks, increased 

demand, declining inventories, and the perceived improvement 

in the world market led to a dramatic rebound in aluminum 

prices. Prices began to trend downward again during the late 
Aluminum (Al) 3

1990s as the economic crisis in the Asian market put pressure on the prices of several mineral commodities, including 

aluminum. The annual average U.S. market price was $0.65 

per pound of aluminum in both 1998 and 1999. Once again, 

the aluminum market was entering a period of oversupply. The 

perceived downward influence of the Asian crisis, however, 

may have hastened the decline in prices before the actual 

oversupply conditions developed. In late 1999, prices for 

aluminum began to rebound from the lows during the Asian 

economic crisis, but began to decline during the second half 

of 2001 with the onset of a domestic recession. The annual 

average U.S. market price was $0.75 per pound of aluminum 

in 2000 and $0.69 per pound of aluminum in 2001. Lower 

prices for aluminum persisted until early 2004, with the 

annual average U.S. market price in 2002 at $0.65 per pound 

of aluminum, and $0.68 per pound in 2003, as the domestic 

economy recovered and global demand increased. 

From the beginning of 2004 through mid-2008, global 

demand for aluminum and other mineral commodities rose 

significantly, led by the emerging economies of Brazil, China, 

India, and Russia, as well as by increasing domestic consumption for automobiles and home construction. The annual 

average U.S. market price was $0.84 per pound of aluminum 

in 2004, $1.06 per pound in 2005, $1.21 per pound in 2006, 

$1.22 per pound in 2007, and $1.21 per pound in 2008. The 

monthly average U.S. market price increased dramatically 

until reaching an alltime high of $1.42 per pound of aluminum 

in July 2008, supported by strong demand, low inventories, 

and strong investment interest in mineral commodities. In the 

third quarter of 2008 in response to the onset of the global 

financial crisis, physical and speculative demand for aluminum 

collapsed, and prices began to decline as consumption by end 

users declined, especially within the automobile industry and 

the construction market. The price decline accelerated during 

the fourth quarter of 2008 and continued throughout most 

of 2009 in response to the expanding global financial crisis, 

with the monthly average price reaching $0.63 per pound of 

aluminum in February 2009. Prices stabilized in late 2009 and 

recovered in 2010, as growth continued in China and other 

emerging markets, although prices did not reach the previous highs. In 2009, the annual average U.S. market price of 

aluminum was $0.79 per pound, and in 2010, it was $1.04 per 

pound.

As prices dropped in the fourth quarter of 2008, inventories at London Metal Exchange (LME) warehouses in 

the United States increased dramatically. At yearend 2007, 

total aluminum inventories were 463,000 metric tons (t). By 

yearend 2008, total aluminum inventories at LME warehouses 

were 1.29 million metric tons (Mt), rising to 2.2 Mt at yearend 

2009, and at yearend 2010, total aluminum inventories were 

2.23 Mt. Long-term financing deals by speculators using 

low-interest credit and low storage rates accounted for much 

of the inventory buildup in the warehouses. Primary aluminum 

producers also preferred to sell to LME traders for immediate 

cash payment rather than sell to manufacturers on credit terms 

during this period.

The fluctuation of prices, production costs, and the 

impact of global growth opportunities affected domestic 

smelting capacity. High electricity prices in the Pacific 

Northwest outpaced the increase in aluminum prices during 

the second half of 2000 and continued throughout 2001, 

leading to production cuts at many smelters. As electricity 

prices remained relatively high in the Pacific Northwest, many 

of the closures were made permanent, and several smelters 

were demolished. During the same period, smelters were 

constructed and expanded in other parts of the world that had 

lower priced electricity, specifically in Iceland and the Middle 

East. Between 1995 and 2004, domestic smelting capacity 

declined by 6 percent, and by 2009, domestic capacity was 

16 percent lower than it had been in 1995. Smelting capacity 

in Iceland increased by 165 percent from 1995 to 2004, and 

by 2009, capacity was 684 percent higher than it had been 

in 1995. In the Middle East, capacity of primary aluminum 

smelters increased by 57 percent from 1995 to 2004, and by 

181 percent between 1995 and 2009. Between 2000 and 2009, 

smelting capacity expanded in Brazil (35 percent), China 

(390 percent), India (123 percent), and Russia (34 percent) to 

supply the demand in these emerging economies and in export 

markets.

References Cited

Blue, Delwin, 1954, Aluminum, in Minerals yearbook 1951, 

v. I: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 128–150.

Hill, J.M., 1921, Bauxite and aluminum, in Metals, pt. 

I of Mineral resources of the United States 1918: 

U.S. Geological Survey, p. 513–526.

Mining Engineering, 1987, Aluminum—The first 100 years 

and a look to the future: Mining Engineering, v. 39, no. 3, 

March, p. 178–180.

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1956, Materials survey—

Aluminum: Compiled by the U.S. Department of Commerce for the Office of Defense Mobilization, 320 p.
4 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Dollars per pound 

Year 

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION 

Figure 1. Annual average aluminum price.

Significant events affecting aluminum prices since 1970

1971–74 Price controls

1973–75 Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) oil embargo and sharp recession

1986–88 Worldwide supply shortages

1991 Dissolution of the Soviet Union

2004–08 Emergence of economies in Brazil, China, India, and Russia drove demand and prices for commodities

2008–09 Prices for aluminum dropped in the wake of the global financial crises
Aluminum (Al) 5

Table 1. Annual average primary aluminum price.

[Values in dollars per pound. NA Not available]

Year Price

1850 17.000

1851 NA

1852 NA

1853 NA

1854 NA

1855 NA

1856 NA

1857 NA

1858 NA

1859 NA

1860 NA

1861 NA

1862 NA

1863 NA

1864 NA

1865 NA

1866 NA

1867 NA

1868 NA

1869 NA

1870 NA

1871 NA

1872 9.000

1873 NA

1874 NA

1875 NA

1876 NA

1877 NA

1878 NA

1879 NA

1880 NA

1881 NA

1882 NA

1883 NA

1884 NA

1885 NA

1886 NA

1887 8.000

1888 NA

1889 NA

1890 NA

Year Price

1891 NA

1892 NA

1893 NA

1894 NA

1895 0.587

1896 0.507

1897 0.390

1898 0.306

1899 0.327

1900 0.327

1901 0.330

1902 0.330

1903 0.330

1904 0.350

1905 0.350

1906 0.358

1907 0.450

1908 0.287

1909 0.220

1910 0.223

1911 0.201

1912 0.220

1913 0.236

1914 0.186

1915 0.340

1916 0.607

1917 0.516

1918 0.335

1919 0.321

1920 0.327

1921 0.221

1922 0.187

1923 0.254

1924 0.270

1925 0.272

1926 0.270

1927 0.254

1928 0.243

1929 0.243

1930 0.238

1931 0.233

Year Price

1932 0.233

1933 0.233

1934 0.234

1935 0.200

1936 0.205

1937 0.199

1938 0.200

1939 0.200

1940 0.187

1941 0.165

1942 0.150

1943 0.150

1944 0.150

1945 0.150

1946 0.150

1947 0.150

1948 0.157

1949 0.170

1950 0.177

1951 0.190

1952 0.194

1953 0.209

1954 0.218

1955 0.237

1956 0.240

1957 0.254

1958 0.248

1959 0.247

1960 0.260

1961 0.255

1962 0.239

1963 0.226

1964 0.237

1965 0.245

1966 0.245

1967 0.250

1968 0.256

1969 0.272

1970 0.287

1971 0.290

1972 0.250

Year Price

1973 0.264

1974 0.431

1975 0.348

1976 0.412

1977 0.478

1978 0.510

1979 0.707

1980 0.761

1981 0.598

1982 0.468

1983 0.683

1984 0.611

1985 0.488

1986 0.559

1987 0.723

1988 1.101

1989 0.878

1990 0.740

1991 0.595

1992 0.575

1993 0.533

1994 0.712

1995 0.859

1996 0.713

1997 0.771

1998 0.655

1999 0.657

2000 0.746

2001 0.688

2002 0.649

2003 0.681

2004 0.840

2005 0.910

2006 1.214

2007 1.222

2008 1.205

2009 0.794

2010 1.044
6 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

Table 1. Annual average primary aluminum price—Continued

[Values in dollars per pound. NA Not available.]

Notes:

1850–94, in U.S. Geological Survey Minerals Yearbooks and predecessor volumes.

1895–98, 98-percent-pure aluminum, in American Bureau of Metal Statistics.

1899–1900, 99-percent-pure aluminum ingot, in American Bureau of Metal Statistics.

1901–04, 99.75-percent-pure aluminum ingot in 2,000-pound lots, in American Bureau of Metal Statistics.

1905, 99.75-percent-pure aluminum ingot in 2,000-pound lots, in American Metal Market/Metal Statistics, 1955.

1906–19, 99-percent-pure No. 1 aluminum ingot, in American Metal Market/Metal Statistics, 1955.

1920–21, 98-percent- to 99-percent-pure aluminum, in American Metal Market/Metal Statistics, 1955.

1922–28, 98-percent-pure aluminum metal, in American Metal Market/Metal Statistics, 1955.

1929–35, 99-percent-pure aluminum metal, in American Metal Market/Metal Statistics, 1955.

1936–54, 99-percent-plus pure aluminum virgin ingot, in American Metal Market/ Metal Statistics, 1955.

1955–56, 99-percent-pure aluminum virgin ingot, in Engineering and Mining Journal.

1957–71, 99.5-percent-pure unalloyed aluminum ingot, in Engineering and Mining Journal.

1972, 99.5-percent-pure unalloyed aluminum ingot, in Metals Week.

1973–82, U.S. market spot price, in Metals Week.

1983–92, 99.7-percent-pure aluminum ingot, U.S. market spot price, in Metals Week.

1993–2010, 99.7-percent-pure aluminum ingot, U.S. market spot price, in Platts (Platt’s) Metals Week.
Antimony (Sb) 7

Antimony (Sb)

by James F. Carlin, Jr.

Archaeological and historical studies indicate that antimony and its mineral sulfides have been used by humans for 

at least 6 millennia. In ancient times, powdered stibnite, the 

most common mineral form of antimony sulfide, was, along 

with lead sulfide, a principal ingredient of kohl, the thick black 

paste used by the Egyptians and others as a cosmetic for coloring eyebrows and lining the eyes. The Chaldeans knew the art 

of extracting the metal from its ores and casting it into ornamented vessels by 4000 B.C. It was being used as a plating on 

copper articles in Egypt by the middle of the third millennium 

B.C. The alchemist Basil Valentine is sometimes credited 

with “discovering” the element; in any case, he described 

the extraction of metallic antimony from its sulfide ore in 

his treatise “The Triumphal Chariot of Antimony,” published 

sometime between A.D.1350 and 1600. When Gutenberg and 

others began using cast metal printing type in the mid-15th 

century, antimony was incorporated in it. As late as the 19th 

century, the number of uses for antimony and the amount used 

remained small. Most of it was used in type metal or alloyed 

with lead for use as bearing metal (babbitt metal) or with tin 

for use in Britannia metal as candlesticks, dinnerware, eating 

utensils, and so forth.

Antimony metal accounts for only a small fraction of 

the antimony consumed in the United States. Alloys containing antimony are used in a variety of applications, including 

lead-acid storage batteries and special solders for joining 

pipes that carry potable water. Domestically, most antimony is 

converted to antimony trioxide, which is primarily used in the 

flame-retardant industry, finding application in such uses as 

children’s clothing and aircraft seats. The major producers of 

antimony, in order of importance, are China, Bolivia, Russia, 

and South Africa.

During the past 40 years, antimony has been subject to a 

few periods of extreme price swings (fig. 1; table 1). Generally, these have been the result of spikes or declines in the 

American and (or) foreign demand for antimony or changes 

in the pattern of the world production—where supply disruptions in any of the major producing countries can cause a 

marked price change. In 1970, a combination of high worldwide demand and short supply from a few countries caused 

a considerable price spike in the early part of that year; the 

price quickly subsided by yearend. In 1974, sharply increased 

demand, especially for antimony trioxide, and supply disruptions from China combined to produce the highest antimony 

price recorded up to that time. During the next 20 years, prices 

generally subsided. By 1994, China had clearly emerged as 

the predominant world antimony producer. That year and 

the following year, severe flooding in the antimony mining 

regions of China created major supply disruptions that caused 

the price to triple within 2 years (Roskill Information Services 

Ltd., 1997, p. 172–179). After 1995, the price fell steadily to a 

level, in 2001, that had not been seen in 30 years.

From 2002 to 2010, the antimony price experienced a 

fairly steady increase, reaching a peak in 2010. This period 

of increasing prices was attributable to several factors: (a) the 

increasing domination of the world market supply by China, 

with occasional stretches of production shortfalls because of 

mining accidents resulting in Government closure of some 

antimony mining sites; (b) the increasing role of China as the 

world’s leading antimony consumer; and (c) a general trend of 

increased global consumption.

The 2008–09 worldwide financial crisis resulted in 

a moderate decline in antimony consumption and prices. 

Perhaps because of antimony’s diversity of end uses, it was 

spared the more severe declines experienced by many metals. 

Furthermore, antimony consumption rebounded reasonably 

well by 2010.

Reference Cited

Roskill Information Services Ltd., 1997, The economics of 

antimony: London, Roskill Information Services Ltd., 

184 p.
8 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Dollars per pound 

Year 

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION

Figure 1. Annual average antimony price.

Significant events affecting antimony prices since 1970

1970 Strong demand and weak supply worldwide, resulted in a price spike

1974 Increased global demand and decreased supply from China, resulted in a price spike

1994–95 Severe reduction in supply from China, resulted in a price spike

2003–10 Periods of intermittent supply interruptions in China, with mine accidents causing closures

2008–09 The global financial crisis caused a moderate decline in world antimony consumption and price
Antimony (Sb) 9

Table 1. Annual average antimony price.

[Values in dollars per pound]

Year Price

1900 0.095

1901 0.082

1902 0.061

1903 0.060

1904 0.064

1905 0.102

1906 0.217

1907 0.148

1908 0.080

1909 0.075

1910 0.074

1911 0.075

1912 0.078

1913 0.075

1914 0.088

1915 0.303

1916 0.254

1917 0.207

1918 0.126

1919 0.082

1920 0.085

1921 0.050

1922 0.054

1923 0.078

1924 0.108

1925 0.175

1926 0.159

1927 0.123

Year Price

1928 0.103

1929 0.089

1930 0.077

1931 0.067

1932 0.056

1933 0.065

1934 0.089

1935 0.136

1936 0.122

1937 0.154

1938 0.124

1939 0.124

1940 0.140

1941 0.140

1942 0.156

1943 0.159

1944 0.158

1945 0.160

1946 0.170

1947 0.340

1948 0.370

1949 0.390

1950 0.290

1951 0.440

1952 0.440

1953 0.360

1954 0.310

1955 0.320

Year Price

1956 0.360

1957 0.350

1958 0.320

1959 0.310

1960 0.310

1961 0.340

1962 0.350

1963 0.350

1964 0.420

1965 0.460

1966 0.460

1967 0.460

1968 0.460

1969 0.580

1970 1.440

1971 0.710

1972 0.590

1973 0.690

1974 1.820

1975 1.770

1976 1.650

1977 1.780

1978 1.150

1979 1.410

1980 1.510

1981 1.360

1982 1.070

1983 0.910

Year Price

1984 1.510

1985 1.310

1986 1.220

1987 1.110

1988 1.040

1989 0.940

1990 0.820

1991 0.820

1992 0.790

1993 0.770

1994 1.780

1995 2.280

1996 1.470

1997 0.980

1998 0.718

1999 0.627

2000 0.655

2001 0.647

2002 0.884

2003 1.075

2004 1.303

2005 1.605

2006 2.380

2007 2.590

2008 2.800

2009 2.360

2010 4.010

Notes: 

1900–36, New York dealer price for 99.30-percent- to 99.50-percent-pure antimony, in Engineering and Mining Journal.

1937–66, New York dealer price for 99.30-percent- to 99.50-percent-pure antimony, in Engineering and Mining Journal, Metal and Mineral Markets.

1967–81, New York dealer price for 99.30-percent- to 99.50-percent-pure antimony, in Metals Week.

1982–93, New York dealer price for 99.50-percent- to 99.60-percent-pure antimony, in Metals Week.

1993–2010, New York dealer price for 99.50-percent- to 99.60-percent-pure antimony, in Platts (Platt’s) Metals Week.
10 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

Arsenic (As)

by William E. Brooks

Arsenic has a long and varied history. Its name comes 

from Arabic and means “powder of the mine.” It was known to 

the ancient Chinese, Egyptians, and Greeks in compound form 

as the minerals arsenopyrite, realgar, and orpiment; however, 

it was not isolated as an element until the 13th century. In the 

1400s, arsenic-derived “Scheele’s Green” was used as a pigment in wallpaper, and arsenic leached from the wallpaper in 

his room may have contributed to Napoleon’s death in 1821. 

The 1940s play, and later the movie, Arsenic and Old Lace

dramatizes the metal’s more sinister role. 

Arsenic is a widely distributed element that is associated with copper, gold, lead, and other nonferrous metal ores 

and continues to be an important mineral commodity with 

many modern applications. The first domestic production of 

arsenic, which was as a byproduct of the smelting of gold 

and silver ores, came near the beginning of the 20th century 

(Greenspoon, 1976, p. 99); however, the United States has not 

produced arsenic since 1985. 

The amount of arsenic metal that is consumed domestically is small and is used as an alloy to strengthen grids in 

lead-acid storage batteries, in lead shot, small-arms ammunition, wheel weights, and with gallium for substrates in 

electronics applications. During the early 1970s, demand 

for arsenic metal was growing, mainly in response to the 

increased use of the metal in the grids of lead-acid batteries; 

the price peaked in 1974 at nearly $2.00 per pound in current 

dollars and then stabilized (fig. 1; table 1). During this time, 

however, the United States and other countries began hearings 

on the health and environmental impacts of arsenic exposure. 

During the late 1970s, various domestic and foreign regulations related to arsenic exposure and emissions were adopted. 

The arsenic metal price peaked again in 1980 at $3.00 per 

pound in current dollars as world producers raised their prices, 

partly to compensate for the cost of modernizing their plants 

and partly in response to the elimination of some capacity by 

producers unable to modernize their plants. Between 1980 

and 1985, owing to an ample supply and a static or possibly 

declining demand, the arsenic metal price declined, averaging 

approximately $1.09 per pound. 

Most of the arsenic used domestically was consumed as 

arsenic trioxide (As2

O3) that was used in the manufacture of 

chromated copper arsenate (CCA), a preservative for pressuretreated wood. Arsenic trioxide also was used in the manufacture of herbicides and insecticides. Arsenic was widely 

used in the United States in the production of CCA; however, 

exposure to arsenic leached from CCA-treated wood was a 

health concern because it could potentially affect breathing, 

heart rhythm, and possibly increase the risk for bladder cancer 

(Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 2007). 

In response to human health concerns, the wood-preserving 

industry made a voluntary decision to stop using CCA to treat 

wood used for decks and outdoor residential use by yearend 

2003, and imports of As2

O3decreased dramatically. CCA may 

still be used for nonresidential wood applications. 

China remains as the world’s leading source of arsenic; 

however, because its principal use for CCA in the United 

States was eliminated, the market stagnated through yearend 

2010.

References Cited

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 

2007, ToxFAQs for arsenic: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, accessed May 30, 2007, at 

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts2.html.

Greenspoon, G.N., 1976, Arsenic, in Mineral facts and 

problems: U.S. Bureau of Mines Bulletin 667, p. 99–106.
Arsenic (As) 11

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Dollars per pound

Year 

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION 

Figure 1. Yearend arsenic metal price.

Significant events affecting arsenic prices since 1970

1972–74 Consumption of arsenic as an alloy to strengthen grids in lead-acid batteries increased; domestic arsenic 

production resumed in 1974

Mid-1970s Congressional hearings on effects of arsenic on health and environment

1980 Production capacity declined as plants that did not meet health and environmental standards were closed

1985 Closure of last copper smelter in Tacoma, Wa., and domestic arsenic production ceased

2003 Voluntary decision by wood-preserving industry to stop using chromated copper arsenate (CCA) 
12 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

Table 1. Yearend arsenic metal price.

[Values in dollars per pound. NA Not available]

Year Price

1959 0.50

1960 0.50

1961 0.50

1962 0.50

1963 0.50

1964 0.50

1965 0.56

1966 0.56

1967 0.48

1968 0.56

1969 0.56

1970 0.64

1971 0.64

Year Price

1972 0.75

1973 0.98

1974 1.91

1975 1.60

1976 1.75

1977 1.90

1978 1.90

1979 1.90

1980 3.00

1981 2.75

1982 2.45

1983 2.25

1984 2.10

Year Price

1985 2.10

1986 1.85

1987 NA

1988 NA

1989 NA

1990 NA

1991 NA

1992 0.73

1993 0.53

1994 0.90

1995 0.70

1996 0.58

1997 0.45

Year Price

1998 0.46

1999 0.59

2000 0.51

2001 0.75

2002 1.20

2003 0.87

2004 0.88

2005 0.95

2006 0.62

2007 1.22

2008 1.25

2009 1.21

2010 1.20

Notes:

1959–74, London prices for 99.5-percent-pure metal, in Metal Bulletin.

1975–86, U.S. producer prices for 99-percent- to 99.5-percent-pure metal, in Metals Week.

1992–98, London prices for minimum 99-percent-pure metal, in Metal Bulletin.

1999–2010, London prices for minimum 99-percent-pure metal, in Platts (Platt’s) Metals Week.
Beryllium (Be) 13

Beryllium (Be)

by Brian W. Jaskula

Beryllium is one of the lightest of all metals and has one 

of the highest melting points of any light metal. It was discovered initially by Vauquelin in 1797 as a constituent of the 

mineral beryl. Wohler and Bussy working separately produced 

metallic beryllium as an impure powder in 1828 by reducing 

beryllium chloride with metallic potassium. By 1916, the first 

significant quantity of beryllium metal was produced in the 

United States. It was not until after World War II, with the 

development of powder fabrication techniques, that a number 

of markets for beryllium metal were developed.

Beryllium has physical and chemical properties, such 

as its stiffness, high resistance to corrosion from acids, and 

high thermal conductivity, which make it useful for various 

applications in its alloy, oxide, and metallic forms. Beryllium 

metal is used principally in aerospace and defense applications 

because of its stiffness, light weight, and dimensional stability 

over a wide temperature range. Beryllium-copper alloys are 

used in a wide variety of applications because of their electrical and thermal conductivities, high strength and hardness, 

good corrosion and fatigue resistance, and nonmagnetic 

properties. Beryllium oxide is an excellent heat conductor, 

with high strength and hardness, and acts as an electrical 

insulator in some applications. The United States, one of only 

three countries that process beryllium ores and concentrates 

into beryllium products, supplies most of the rest of the world 

with these products (Cunningham, 1999). Because of its use 

in aerospace and defense applications, beryllium is classified as “critical and strategic,” and in the past, various beryllium materials have been purchased for the National Defense 

Stockpile (NDS). Steel, titanium, phosphor bronze, and aluminum nitride can be substituted for beryllium in some applications but usually at a performance penalty. The quoted price 

for beryllium metal during most of the 1980s and 1990s, as 

presented in the table and graph, may not reflect true transaction prices for the material (fig. 1; table 1). The quoted prices 

reflect the more high-end/high-purity form of the material.

In 1956, the Atomic Energy Commission awarded 5-year 

contracts to two domestic companies for each to produce 

about 45 metric tons (t) of beryllium annually (Eilertsen, 

1958). Beryllium metal was also considered for aircraft structural components and components in inertial guidance systems 

for advanced missiles. These new applications increased beryllium metal demand, which led to improvements in beryllium 

processing and a reduction in price.

Prior to 1970, the United States was nearly 100 percent 

import dependent for its beryl ore needs. In 1969, however, a 

bertrandite mine opened in Utah that provided a large, secure 

source of domestic raw material supply (Petkof, 1985). During most of the 1960s, the price for beryllium metal remained 

stable.

By 1977 and continuing through the 1990s, the effects 

of inflation rates and rising operating costs were reflected in 

increased beryllium prices. Energy requirements for producing 

beryllium metal are high. Processing requires the use of 

induction furnaces that consume large quantities of energy. 

Also, because of the toxic nature of beryllium, the industry 

must maintain careful control of the quantity of beryllium 

dust and fumes in the workplace. Under the Clean Air Act, 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issues standards 

for certain hazardous air pollutants, including beryllium, and 

the Occupational Safety and Health Administration issues 

standards for airborne beryllium particles. To comply with 

these standards, plants are required to install and maintain 

pollution control equipment. Beryllium dust and fumes have 

been recognized as the cause of berylliosis, a serious chronic 

lung disease. Although the exact cause of the disease is uncertain, the problem appears to be controlled when established 

preventative measures are exercised. In beryllium-processing 

plants, harmful effects are prevented by maintaining clean 

workplaces; requiring the use of safety equipment, such as 

personal respirators; collecting dust, fumes, and mists at 

the source of deposition in dust collectors; following strict 

medical programs; and following other procedures to provide 

safe working conditions (Rossman and others, 1991, p. 267; 

Kramer, 1995). This control of potential health hazards adds to 

the cost of beryllium metal and other beryllium products. The 

additional costs are ultimately passed on to the consumer in 

the form of increased prices.

In 1979, one of the two domestic beryllium producers 

discontinued beryllium metal production, leaving the price of 

the metal to be set by one company (Petkof, 1980). In 1988, 

the U.S. Government purchased about 27 t of “vacuum hotpressed beryllium billets” worth an estimated $19 million; the 

metal was delivered to the NDS by yearend 1989 (Kramer, 

1990). The average unit value for the NDS metal was about 

$317 per pound. The quoted price for beryllium metal powder 

at yearend 1988 and yearend 1989 was $244 per pound and 

$261 per pound, respectively. In 1990, the Defense Logistics 

Agency awarded a contract to convert some of the beryl ore 

contained in the NDS to vacuum hot-pressed beryllium billets. 

The contract was extended through 1992 for a combined 

total of 73 t of beryllium metal, valued at about $46 million, 

recovered from about 2,940 t of NDS beryl ore (Kramer, 

1993; 1994). The overall unit value of the NDS metal, about 

$287 per pound, was comparable to the price being quoted 

for beryllium metal powder from yearend 1990 to yearend 
14 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

1994, which ranged from $269 per pound to $295 per pound. 

Deliveries of the metal to the NDS were completed in the 

second quarter of 1994.

The beryllium metal purchase and beryl ore conversion 

came at a time of declining beryllium metal consumption, 

caused by reduced spending for strategic defense programs. 

The jump in price in 1995, shown in the graph, reflects a 

change in the nature of the price quotation, not any single 

causal event. Beryllium metal currently averages about 10 

percent of annual U.S. beryllium demand compared with about 

20 percent in the early 1990s. With applications primarily in 

the aerospace and defense sectors, the dissolution of the Soviet 

Union in 1991 contributed most to the decline in beryllium 

metal demand as defense strategic plans changed. 

In 2000, the sole U.S. beryllium producer closed its 

beryllium metal production facility owing to equipment obsolescence, the availability of beryllium metal from the NDS, 

and other factors (Shedd, 2006). As a result, the U.S. producer 

price, quoted in American Metal Market, was no longer available, and another pricing source was required. The only source 

of beryllium metal pricing available was derived from NDS 

sales; however, this price reflected sales of vacuum-cast ingot 

for upgrading, which were of significantly lower quality than 

the beryllium powder that had been priced commercially. In 

2005, the U.S. Department of Defense invested in a publicprivate partnership with the U.S. beryllium producer to build 

a new $90.4 million primary beryllium facility in Ohio. 

Construction of the facility was completed in 2010. Approximately two-thirds of the facility’s output was to be allocated 

for defense and government-related end uses, the remaining 

output going to the private sector. Plant capacity was reported 

to be 73 t per year of high-purity beryllium metal (Jaskula, 

2011). 

The sharp drop in price beginning in 2000, as shown in 

the graph, resulted from the change in price series and grade, 

not necessarily an actual decline in pricing.

References Cited

Cunningham, L.D., 1999, Beryllium, in Metals and minerals: 

U.S. Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook 1997, v. I, p. 

11.1–11.6.

Eilertsen, D.E., 1958, Beryllium, in Metals and minerals 

(except fuels): U.S. Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook 

1956, v. I, p. 253–258.

Jaskula, B.W., 2011, Beryllium: U.S. Geological Survey 

Mineral Commodity Summaries 2011, p. 28–29.

Kramer, D.A., 1990, Beryllium, in Metals and minerals: 

U.S. Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook 1988, v. I, 

p. 165–169.

Kramer, D.A., 1993, Beryllium in 1992—Annual review: 

U.S. Bureau of Mines Mineral Industry Surveys, June, 5 p. 

(Not published in Minerals Yearbook 1992.)

Kramer, D.A., 1994, Beryllium in 1993—Annual review: 

U.S. Bureau of Mines Mineral Industry Surveys, June, 4 p. 

(Not published in Minerals Yearbook 1993.)

Kramer, D.A., 1995, Beryllium, in Metals and minerals: 

U.S. Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook 1994, v. I, 

p. 105–110.

Petkof, Benjamin, 1980, Beryllium, in Metals and minerals: 

U.S. Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook 1978–79, v. I, 

p. 111–114.

Petkof, Benjamin, 1985, Beryllium, in Mineral facts and problems: U.S. Bureau of Mines Bulletin 675, p. 75–82.

Rossman, M.D., Preuss, O.P., and Powers, M.B., 1991, 

Beryllium—Biomedical and environmental aspects: 

Baltimore, Md., Williams & Wilkins, 319 p.

Shedd, K.B, 2006, Beryllium, in Metals and minerals: 

U.S. Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook 2005, v. I, 

p. 11.1–11.6.
Beryllium (Be) 15

n 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Dollars per pound

Year 

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION

Figure 1. Yearend average beryllium price.

Significant events affecting beryllium prices since 1970

1977 Effects of inflation rates, increased energy costs, and additional costs associated with complying with air emissio

standards resulted in increased prices

1979 Beryllium metal price was set by one producer

1988 Purchase of beryllium metal for the National Defense Stockpile (NDS)

1990 Conversion of NDS beryl ore to beryllium metal for the NDS

1995 Price increase resulted from change in reported beryllium metal grade, not necessarily an actual increase in pricing

2000 Price decrease resulted from change in price series and grade, not necessarily an actual decline in pricing

2000 Closure of obsolete primary beryllium production plant in United States

2010 Construction of new primary beryllium production plant in United States
16 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

Table 1. Yearend average beryllium metal price.

[Values in dollars per pound]

Year Price

1947 95.00

1948 95.00

1949 95.00

1950 95.00

1951 95.00

1952 95.00

1953 71.50

1954 71.50

1955 71.50

1956 71.50

1957 71.50

1958 71.50

1959 71.50

1960 70.00

1961 54.00

1962 54.00

Year Price

1963 54.00

1964 54.00

1965 54.00

1966 54.00

1967 54.00

1968 54.00

1969 60.00

1970 60.00

1971 60.00

1972 60.00

1973 49.00

1974 59.75

1975 59.50

1976 59.50

1977 96.00

1978 103.00

Year Price

1979 103.00

1980 120.00

1981 148.00

1982 166.00

1983 178.00

1984 178.00

1985 196.00

1986 204.00

1987 229.00

1988 244.00

1989 261.00

1990 269.00

1991 280.00

1992 280.00

1993 295.00

1994 295.00

Year Price

1995 385.00

1996 385.00

1997 385.00

1998 385.00

1999 385.00

2000 83.00

2001 73.00

2002 76.00

2003 74.00

2004 76.00

2005 78.00

2006 82.00

2007 85.00

2008 89.00

2009 109.00

2010 107.00

Notes:

1947–52, Beryllium, technical grade, in Engineering and Mining Journal, Metal and Mineral Markets.

1953–59, Beryllium, lumps and beads, 97 percent beryllium, in American Metal Market (AMM).

1960–68, Beryllium, powder or powder blend, 97 percent beryllium, in AMM.

1969–80, Beryllium, powder or powder blend, in U.S. Bureau of Mines, Minerals Yearbook, origin and (or) beryllium content unknown.

1981–85, Beryllium, powder blend, 97 percent beryllium, in AMM.

1986–89, Beryllium, powder blend, 98.5 percent beryllium, provided by Brush Wellman, Inc.

1990–94, Beryllium, powder blend, 98.5 percent beryllium, in AMM.

1995–99, Beryllium, powder, 99 percent beryllium, in AMM.

2000–09, Beryllium metal, in U.S. Department of Defense, Strategic and Critical Materials Operations Report to Congress, beryllium content unknown.

2010, Beryllium, hot-pressed powder, in Defense National Stockpile Center, National Defense Stockpile cash disposals, beryllium content unknown.
Bismuth (Bi) 17

Bismuth (Bi)

by James F. Carlin, Jr.

Bismuth-lead and bismuth-tin alloys are known to have 

been used during the Middle Ages. Around 1597, the efficacy 

of bismuth nitrate in the treatment of intestinal disorders was 

discovered, and this is still used today in stomach ailment 

remedies. In the 18th century, pure bismuth metal was produced, demonstrating that bismuth was a distinct element.

Demand for bismuth in the United States was small prior 

to World War II. The chief use was for medicines; bismuth 

compounds were used to treat such conditions as digestive 

disorders, venereal diseases, and burns. Minor amounts of 

bismuth were consumed in fusible alloys for fire sprinkler 

systems and fuse wire. Bismuth has always been produced 

mainly as a byproduct of lead refining. The price, which was 

controlled by the major producers until the mid-1960s, typically reflected the cost of recovery. In World War II, bismuth, 

considered to be a strategic and critical material, was used for 

solders, fusible alloys, in medications, and in atomic research. 

To stabilize the market, the producers set the price at $1.25 per 

pound during the war and at $2.25 per pound from 1950 until 

1964 (U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1966) (table 1).

In the early 1970s, demand for bismuth as a metallurgical 

additive to aluminum, iron, and steel increased rapidly. This, 

combined with increased consumption in other categories, 

caused the producer price to increase dramatically in 1974 to a 

peak of $12.00 per pound in June (fig. 1). By August, the price 

dropped back to $9.00 per pound, where it remained through 

the rest of the year. During 1974, a 21-percent decrease in 

domestic consumption affected all categories of bismuth consumption (Wyche, 1976). 

Prices trended sharply downward from 1975 to 1982 

owing to increased world production, with little growth in 

consumption. ASARCO Incorporated, the only domestic producer, suspended its list price on October 1, 1980. Until then, 

the annual average price reported was the Asarco price for 

99.99-percent-pure bismuth. After 1980, the New York dealer 

price was reported (Carlin, 1981).

In Bolivia, the only country where bismuth was mined 

as a principal product, production virtually ceased in 1980 

owing to the sustained low price of bismuth (Metal Bulletin, 

1982). During the recession of 1981–82, declining domestic 

consumption and an excess of stocks held by world producers 

caused the price to drop to a low of $1.30 per pound in January 1983.

In 1984, the price began to climb as consumption 

increased worldwide, especially in the United States and 

Japan. In 1988, a series of miners’ strikes in Peru, one of the 

largest producers of bismuth in the world, cut off all shipments 

for several months (King, 1988; Mining Journal, 1988). This 

led to the price reaching nearly $7 per pound, even though 

domestic consumers were able to compensate for this loss by 

obtaining bismuth elsewhere.

In late 1989, the price of bismuth began to drop owing 

to lower consumption, increased imports, large world stocks, 

and dealer reaction to the plan to sell 510 metric tons (t) of the 

bismuth in the National Defense Stockpile (NDS) within 10 

years (American Metal Market, 1990). The Defense Logistics 

Agency (DLA) sold more than 59 t from the NDS in 1990 and 

more than 57 t in 1991. U.S. imports also increased in 1989 

and 1990, which further increased the supply of bismuth and 

helped keep the price near $3.00 per pound. In 1992, the DLA 

released 91 t of bismuth from the NDS and announced a new 

plan to release the remaining 740 t during a 10-year period 

(Jasinski, 1993). 

In the early 1990s, research began on the evaluation 

of bismuth as a nontoxic replacement for lead in such uses 

as ceramic glazes, fishing sinkers, food-processing equipment (Murray, 1993), free-machining brasses for plumbing 

applications (Feder, 1991), lubricating greases, and shot for 

waterfowl hunting (Lowry, 1993). During the mid-1990s, 

growth in these areas remained slow in spite of direct or 

indirect Government backing of bismuth for lead replacement. 

The 1996 Amendments to the 1986 Safe Drinking Water Act 

required lead-free plumbing for new installations and repairs 

of facilities providing potable water by August 1998. Also, 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service gave final approval for the 

use of bismuth-tin shot for waterfowl hunting (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 1997). In 1997, after extended negotiations 

with local and Nebraska State authorities on environmental 

remediation, Asarco closed its Omaha smelter, the only site of 

domestic bismuth production. Also in 1997, the DLA sold all 

the bismuth remaining in the NDS (American Metal Market, 

1997). Thus, the United States became completely dependent 

on imports for its supply of primary bismuth.

At the end of the 1990s, total bismuth demand increased 

moderately as consumption for new uses, especially hunting and plumbing applications, began to increase. Supply 

remained adequate and prices remained low. Owing to low 

prices for bismuth, the reopening of the Tasna Mine in Bolivia, 

closed since 1980, was delayed. When production started, 

bismuth, copper, gold, and tungsten were to be coproducts 

(Mining Journal, 1999). In the original plan, bismuth was to be 

the main product (Tice, 1997).

During the late 1990s and through 2010, environmental 

and legislative pressure continued to mount against the use 
18 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

of lead in numerous countries and in several specific lead 

applications. These actions resulted in a growing market for 

bismuth, which was seen as being nontoxic.

From 1990 to 2010, use of bismuth in some of its major 

applications began to subside as companies found that they 

could get approximate quality levels and lower their costs by 

using less bismuth. These trends were especially noted in the 

use of bismuth as an additive to free-machining aluminum and 

steel products, and also in a few of the medicinal applications.

In 2007, two of the major international bismuth refiners 

agreed to merge their operations to become the world’s leading 

bismuth refiner. The merger had the effect of giving the newly 

merged company better control of the bismuth supply side, 

and therefore tended to boost the bismuth price higher than it 

may have otherwise been. Also in 2007, the increasing role of 

private investment commodity funds generally had the effect 

of causing higher metal prices.

In 2008–09, the worldwide financial crisis and recession 

had a marked effect on global bismuth consumption and price. 

By 2009, the average bismuth price was almost one-half of the 

2007 average price. 

References Cited

American Metal Market, 1990, DLA schedules sale of bismuth: American Metal Market, v. 98, July 23, no. 142, p. 2.

American Metal Market, 1997, DLA’s bismuth stocks emptied: American Metal Market, v. 105, no. 218, November 

10, p. 16.

Carlin, J.F., Jr., 1981, Bismuth, in Metals and minerals: U.S. 

Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook 1980, v. I, p. 129–132.

Feder, B.J., 1991, A new form of brass, to cut lead in drinking 

water: New York Times, May 15, p. C7. 

Jasinski, S.M., 1993, Bismuth in 1992—Annual review: U.S. 

Bureau of Mines Mineral Industry Surveys, 6 p. (Not published in Minerals Yearbook 1992.)

King, A.G., 1988, Bismuth rise caused by Peru strike: 

American Metal Market, v. 96, no. 155, August 9, p. 2. 

Lowry, Ed, 1993, Bismuth shot—The ballistic potential: 

American Rifleman, v. 141, no. 9, September, p. 54–61.

Metal Bulletin, 1982, Bismuth metal: Metal Bulletin Handbook 1982, v. 2, Statistics, p. 87–89.

Mining Journal, 1988, Peru strike boosts bismuth: [London] 

Mining Journal, v. 310, no. 7953, January 29, p. 77.

Mining Journal, 1999, Minor metals in December: [London] 

Mining Journal, v. 332, no. 8514, January 15, p. 27.

Murray, C.J., 1993, Bismuth alloy replaces lead, eliminates 

toxicity: Design News, v. 49, no. 10, May 17, p. 124–125.

Tice, Kelley, 1997, A mine’s tale—Taking care of bismuth: 

American Metal Market, v. 105, no.174, September 9, 

p. 1–2.

U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1966, Bismuth: U.S. Bureau of Mines 

Commodity Data Summaries: p. 16–17.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1997, Approval of bismuth-tin 

shot as non-toxic for waterfowl and coots hunting: Federal 

Register, v. 62, no. 12, January 31, p. 4873–4876.

Wyche, Charlie, 1976, Bismuth, in Metals, Minerals, and 

Fuels: U.S. Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook 1974, v. I, 

p. 223–227.
Bismuth (Bi) 19

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Dollars per pound

Year

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION

Figure 1. Annual average bismuth price.
20 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

Significant events affecting bismuth prices since 1970

1970–74 Major increase in demand for bismuth as a metallurgical additive to aluminum, iron, and steel caused price to 

reach an alltime high

1975–81 World production increased faster than consumption

1980 Bolivia ceased production; ASARCO Incorporated suspended producer price

1981–82 Economic recession

1984 Bismuth consumption increased, especially in the United States and Japan

1988 Miners’ strikes cut off all shipments from Peru for several months

1989–90 U.S. consumption decreased, especially for metallurgical additives and chemicals; this, combined with increased 

imports, large world stocks, and impending releases from Government stockpiles caused the price to drop, in 

spite of bismuth’s increasing potential for replacing lead in environmentally sensitive applications

1990 U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), having lowered the goal for bismuth in the National Defense Stockpile 

(NDS) from 990 to 480 metric tons (t), began selling the excess bismuth

1992 DOD announced plans to sell all bismuth remaining in the NDS within a 10-year period

1994 A significant increase in domestic consumption, especially in the chemicals and pharmaceutical category, 

combined with a moderate decline in world mine production tightened supply

1996 Amendments to 1986 Safe Drinking Water Act; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service gave final approval to 

Bi-97-percent-Sn shot for waterfowl hunting

1997 Omaha, Nebr. plant (the sole U.S. producer of primary bismuth) closed in June; the NDS exhausted its supply of 

bismuth in November

1998–2004 Prices remained low and supplies remained adequate as efforts to reduce use of bismuth in free machining 

aluminum and steel applications counter growth in nonferrous alloys

2005–07 Increased global demand and speculative interest resulted in higher prices for most metals; two of the world’s 

leading refined bismuth producers agreed to combine their operations

2008–09 Global financial crisis reduced demand

2010 Recovery in world demand
Bismuth (Bi) 21

Table 1. Annual average bismuth price.

[Values in dollars per pound]

Year Price

1906 1.25

1907 1.25

1908 1.75

1909 1.75

1910 1.93

1911 2.13

1912 2.03

1913 2.00

1914 2.88

1915 2.88

1916 3.63

1917 3.43

1918 3.43

1919 3.08

1920 2.55

1921 1.95

1922 1.98

1923 2.50

1924 2.03

1925 2.00

1926 3.03

1927 2.30

1928 1.98

1929 1.70

1930 1.35

1931 1.25

1932 0.85

Year Price

1933 1.08

1934 1.20

1935 1.05

1936 1.00

1937 1.00

1938 1.05

1939 1.10

1940 1.25

1941 1.25

1942 1.25

1943 1.25

1944 1.25

1945 1.25

1946 1.44

1947 1.98

1948 2.00

1949 2.00

1950 2.06

1951 2.25

1952 2.25

1953 2.25

1954 2.25

1955 2.25

1956 2.25

1957 2.25

1958 2.25

.1959 2.25

Year Price

1960 2.25

1961 2.25

1962 2.25

1963 2.25

1964 2.30

1965 3.43

1966 4.00

1967 4.00

1968 4.00

1969 4.63

1970 6.00

1971 5.26

1972 3.63

1973 5.25

1974 9.25

1975 8.25

1976 7.50

1977 6.00

1978 3.38

1979 3.01

1980 2.64

1981 2.52

1982 1.61

1983 1.72

1984 4.27

1985 5.18

1986 3.25

Year Price

1987 3.65

1988 5.78

1989 5.76

1990 3.56

1991 3.10

1992 2.66

1993 2.50

1994 3.25

1995 3.85

1996 3.65

1997 3.50

1998 3.60

1999 3.85

2000 3.70

2001 3.74

2002 3.14

2003 2.87

2004 3.35

2005 3.91

2006 5.04

2007 14.07

2008 12.73

2009 7.84

2010 8.76

Notes:

1906–23, ASARCO Incorporated, producer price for 99.99-percent-pure bismuth, in U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Resources of the United States.

1924–31, ASARCO Incorporated, producer price for 99.99-percent-pure bismuth, in U.S. Bureau of Mines, Mineral Resources of the United States.

1932–80, ASARCO Incorporated, producer price for 99.99-percent-pure bismuth, in U.S. Bureau of Mines, Minerals Yearbook.

1981–93, New York dealer price for 99.99-percent-pure bismuth, in Metals Week.

1993–2010, New York dealer price for 99.99-percent-pure bismuth, in Platts (Platt’s) Metals Week.
22 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

Cadmium (Cd)

by Amy C. Tolcin

Cadmium was discovered in 1817 by F. Strohmeyer as 

an impurity in pharmaceutical zinc carbonate. The first use of 

cadmium was in a sulfide form in paint pigments. Cadmium 

metal was first produced commercially in Germany in the 19th 

century as a byproduct of the smelting of cadmium-bearing 

zinc ores of Upper Silesia. Cadmium was first produced in 

the United States in 1906, and by 1917, the United States had 

become the world’s leading producer.

Cadmium minerals are not found in sufficient commercial 

quantities to be considered a main product in ore deposits. The 

metal is produced as a byproduct in the recovery of primary 

zinc from zinc ores and also from some lead or complex 

copper-lead-zinc ores. The feed material for cadmium production consists of fume and dust that are collected as flue dust 

in baghouses during the pyrometallurgical processing of zinc 

and residues that result from electrolytic zinc production. 

The availability of cadmium is, in most cases, dependent on 

the amount of zinc produced. Germany was the only important producer of cadmium until World War I. Production of 

cadmium in the United States began in 1907. By 1917, the 

United States had become the world’s leading producer and 

held that position for more than 50 years. During this period, 

the price of cadmium was dictated by either market forces or, 

during World War II and the Korean Conflict, Governmentimposed regulations. The last of these regulations, enacted 

during the Korean Conflict, was revoked on May 15, 1952. 

Since that time, the price of cadmium has been determined 

primarily by supply and demand.

Following the end of Government regulations, the 

price of cadmium metal fluctuated widely between 1953 and 

1973, reflecting the variation in supply and demand (table 1). 

Domestic prices rose concurrent with generally strong economic conditions most of 1973 and increased to $4.09 per 

pound by 1974, surpassing the European market quotations 

(fig. 1). During the next few years, the price trended slowly 

downward despite continuing currency inflation. By 1982, 

depressed by the recessions of 1980 and 1981–82, the price 

had dropped to the lowest level since the end of World War 

II—$1.11 per pound of cadmium metal.

What began as a modest increase in 1986 and 1987 

turned into the largest recorded annual increase of cadmium 

price in 1988. By March of 1988, the domestic price for a 

pound of cadmium metal reached $9.10. The market was so 

tight in early 1988 that major producers did not have any 

material to sell on the spot market and would not make any 

commitments for near-term sales at a specific price. The price 

increase was attributed to the tight supply of cadmium, heavy 

speculative trading, and world labor disputes, which disrupted 

the supply of cadmium metal. The supply squeeze was further 

affected by the purchases of large quantities of cadmium by 

the nickel-cadmium battery industry, particularly in Japan. 

For the first 8 months (after which producers stopped quoting 

prices), the price averaged $7.90, a nearly 300 percent increase 

from that of the previous year. The price fell precipitously in 

the following 5 years, dropping to $0.45 in 1993. Since that 

year, the price for cadmium has fluctuated between $0.28 and 

$1.80 per pound of metal. Some industry analysts attribute the 

volatility of cadmium prices to the fact that 95 percent of all 

cadmium is sold under long-term contracts, usually by primary 

zinc producers, and the price of cadmium is strongly influenced by the 5 percent of cadmium sold on the spot market, 

which is more reflective of supply and demand.

The price for cadmium in the next several years will 

probably be affected by the ban on the use of cadmium in 

selected applications in countries of the European Union, 

increasingly strict U.S. environmental regulations limiting 

domestic use of cadmium in all its forms, and an increased 

supply of primary cadmium from zinc smelting and secondary 

cadmium from recycling (European Union, 2011; Organisation 

for Economic Co-operation and Development, 1997, p. 3–5).

As the byproduct of other metals production, cadmium 

is not subject to the normal supply demand dynamics of most 

metals. The inelastic supply-demand situation associated with 

byproduct commodities invariably leads to volatile pricing, 

and such has been the case for cadmium for the past 20 to 30 

years. 

Cadmium prices remained at historically low levels in 

2000. As world supply tightened toward yearend, however, 

prices for cadmium began to inch upward. Reduced primary 

production—offsetting increased secondary cadmium output—and continued moderate demand led to a balanced world 

cadmium market in 2000. At yearend 2002, the price of cadmium increased significantly to $0.90 per pound from $0.25 

per pound in January owing to the closure of Metaleurop SA’s 

cadmium production facility at its Noyelles-Godault smelter 

in France, creating a supply deficit in the refined cadmium 

market of 4,100 metric tons. The price increase continued 

into 2003, although moderated, and reached an average of 

$0.59 per pound for the year. In 2005, the annual average 

cadmium price increased to $1.50 per pound from $0.54 per 

pound in 2004 owing to China’s rising consumption and lower 

than anticipated global production growth, which was constrained by a scarcity of zinc concentrates. The average price 

of cadmium in 2006 decreased to $1.35 per pound. During 

early 2006, cadmium prices fell sharply as consumers drew 

down material from excess stocks rather than buy on the 
Cadmium (Cd) 23

spot market. After a slight increase from April to June 2006, 

prices again turned downward during the summer—a decline 

largely attributed to temporary oversupply rather than a lack of 

demand. The 2007 average price for cadmium was $3.45 per 

pound. Cadmium’s considerable price increase was attributed 

to a lack of available material on the spot market during the 

year. The 2008 average price for cadmium decreased to $2.69 

per pound. Prices declined sharply after the first quarter of 

2008, coinciding with the escalation of the global financial 

crisis that began around midyear. In 2009, cadmium prices 

recovered slightly; prices rose to $1.59 per pound in December 

from $0.83 per pound in January, averaging $1.30 per pound 

for the year.

References Cited 

European Union, 2011, Chemicals/REACH–EU to ban cadmium in jewelry, brazing sticks and all plastics: Brussels, 

Belgium, European Union press release, May 20, 1 p.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 1997, OECD workshop on the effective collection 

and recycling of nickel-cadmium batteries: Lyon, France, 

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 

30 p.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Dollars per pound 

Year 

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION

Figure 1. Annual average cadmium price.

Significant events affecting cadmium prices since 1970

1971–74 Doubling of price, despite anti-inflation price controls

1973–74 Oil embargo by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries

1980–82 Two recessions (1980 and 1981–82); plummeting price

1982 Lowest cadmium price since end the of World War II

1988 Tight supply of cadmium metal, speculative trading; largest recorded annual increase in cadmium price

2002 Closure of Metaleurop’s Noyelles-Godault smelter reduces cadmium supply; price increases

2004 Battery manufacturing industry relocates to China; rate of Chinese cadmium consumption increases significantly

2008–09 Global economic crisis; price declines
24 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

Table 1. Annual average cadmium price.

[Values in dollars per pound]

Year Price

1900 0.650

1901 0.680

1902 0.540

1903 0.530

1904 0.590

1905 0.650

1906 0.760

1907 1.020

1908 0.750

1909 0.520

1910 0.550

1911 0.670

1912 0.760

1913 0.770

1914 0.890

1915 1.190

1916 1.560

1917 1.470

1918 1.480

1919 1.220

1920 1.170

1921 0.980

1922 1.090

1923 0.880

1924 0.700

1925 0.600

1926 0.600

1927 0.600

Year Price

1928 0.600

1929 0.600

1930 0.600

1931 0.550

1932 0.550

1933 0.550

1934 0.550

1935 0.700

1936 0.980

1937 1.220

1938 0.980

1939 0.640

1940 0.820

1941 0.900

1942 0.900

1943 0.900

1944 0.900

1945 0.900

1946 1.090

1947 1.700

1948 1.830

1949 2.000

1950 2.170

1951 2.550

1952 2.230

1953 2.000

1954 1.700

1955 1.700

Year Price

1956 1.700

1957 1.700

1958 1.520

1959 1.360

1960 1.520

1961 1.680

1962 1.720

1963 2.260

1964 3.000

1965 2.580

1966 2.420

1967 2.640

1968 2.650

1969 3.270

1970 3.570

1971 1.920

1972 2.560

1973 3.640

1974 4.090

1975 3.360

1976 2.660

1977 2.960

1978 2.450

1979 2.760

1980 2.840

1981 1.930

1982 1.110

1983 1.130

Year Price

1984 1.690

1985 1.210

1986 1.250

1987 1.990

1988 7.900

1989 6.280

1990 3.380

1991 2.010

1992 0.910

1993 0.450

1994 1.130

1995 1.840

1996 1.240

1997 0.510

1998 0.280

1999 0.177

2000 0.164

2001 0.227

2002 0.292

2003 0.594

2004 0.546

2005 1.497

2006 1.353

2007 3.451

2008 2.686

2009 1.300

2010 1.767

Notes:

1900–66, Producer price for 99.95-percent-pure cadmium, in Engineering and Mining Journal.

1967–93, Producer price for 99.95-percent-pure cadmium, in Metals Week. Major producers suspended price quotes during the last 4 months of 1988; 1988 

price is January to August average.

1994–2010, New York dealer price for 99.99-percent-pure cadmium, in Platts (Platt’s) Metals Week.
Cesium (Cs) 25

Cesium (Cs)

by William E. Brooks

Cesium, the most electropositive and least abundant of 

the five naturally occurring alkali metals, was the first element to be discovered spectroscopically (Perel’man, 1965, 

p. 1). Cesium was first produced in its metallic state in 1881. 

Industrial uses of cesium did not emerge until 1926, when it 

was used as a getter and in radio tubes (Burt, 1993, p. 749). 

Although there are cesium occurrences in the United States, 

cesium is not mined domestically and the United States is 100 

percent reliant on imports. Historically, the most important use 

for cesium has been in research and development, primarily in 

chemical and electrical applications. Radioactive isotopes of 

cesium are generated in fuel rods in nuclear powerplants and 

have important biomedical and industrial applications. 

Owing to the small size of the industry, quoted cesium 

prices are those of individual companies. The price of cesium 

varies with the purity of the material and inversely with the 

quantity purchased, and the metal has been marketed in purities ranging from 99 percent to 99.98 percent.

The annual prices presented in the graph and table may 

not be comparable from year to year owing to differences in 

purities, quantity of material purchased, and (or) the source 

of the price (fig. 1; table 1). For example, prior to 1960, 

the prices published in the U.S. Bureau of Mines Minerals 

Yearbook (MYB) were for purchases of less than 1 pound 

of cesium metal. From 1960 through 1991, the cesium metal 

prices published in the MYB were for purchases of at least 1 

pound of material and are significantly lower than the pre1960 prices owing to discounts for the larger quantity purchased. The prices for 1992 through 2010 represent the price 

charged for a 1-gram ampoule of 99.98-percent-pure cesium 

metal and are an order of magnitude higher than the 1960 to 

1991 prices.

References Cited

Burt, R.O., 1993, Cesium and cesium compounds, in

Ullmann’s encyclopedia of industrial chemistry (4th ed.): 

Weinheim, Germany, VCH Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, v. 5, 

p. 749–763.

Perel’man, F.M., 1965, Rubidium and caesium: New York, 

The Macmillan Co., 144 p.
26 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Dollars per gram

Year

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION

Figure 1. Annual average cesium price.
Cesium (Cs) 27

Table 1. Annual average cesium price.

[Values in dollars per gram. NA Not available]

Year Price

1959 2.23

1960 1.19

1961 0.83

1962 0.83

1963 0.52

1964 0.52

1965 0.58

1966 NA

1967 0.58

1968 0.58

1969 0.52

1970 0.52

1971 0.52

Year Price

1972 0.52

1973 0.52

1974 0.52

1975 0.52

1976 0.52

1977 0.66

1978 NA

1979 0.50

1980 0.50

1981 0.50

1982 0.66

1983 0.66

1984 0.66

Year Price

1985 0.72

1986 0.72

1987 0.66

1988 0.66

1989 0.69

1990 0.69

1991 0.69

1992 38.50

1993 38.50

1994 38.50

1995 40.80

1996 40.80

1997 43.70

Year Price

1998 63.30

1999 61.90

2000 59.90

2001 46.00

2002 45.30

2003 46.10

2004 46.90

2005 45.30

2006 45.20

2007 44.00

2008 44.20

2009 47.70

2010 47.80

Notes:

1959, Average of the prices attributed to American Potash & Chemical Corp. & Penn Rare Metals Co.

1960, 99+-percent-pure cesium, 10-pound lots.

1961–62, Penn Rare Metals Division, Kawecki Chemical Co., 99.9-percent-pure cesium, 1- to 9-pound lots.

1963–64, Average of the range of prices for 99+-percent-pure cesium in American Metal Market.

1965, Average of the range of prices for 99.6-percent-pure cesium, 1- to 9-pound lots attributed to the Penn Rare Metals Division of Kawecki Chemical Co. 

1967–68, Average of the range of prices for 99.5-percent-pure cesium, 1- to 9-pound lots attributed to the Penn Rare Metals Division of Kawecki Chemical Co.

1969, Average of the range of prices for 99+-percent-pure cesium.

1970–77, Average of the range of prices for 99+-percent-pure cesium in American Metal Market. 

1979–81, American Metal Market yearend price for 99+-percent-pure cesium.

1982–86, KBI Division, Cabot Corp., average of the yearend price for technical- and high-purity-grade cesium.

1987–88, KBI Division, Cabot Corp., average of the yearend price for technical- and high-purity-grade cesium in lots of less than 50 pounds.

1989–91, KBI Division, Cabot Corp.

1992–2010, Alfa Aesar and other chemical catalogs. Prices for purchases of 99.98-percent-pure cesium in 1-gram ampoules.
28 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

Chromium (Cr)

by John F. Papp

Chromium was discovered in 1797 by Nicolas-Louis 

Vauquelin (Weeks, 1968, p. 271–283). The chromite mineral, 

comprising primarily chromium, iron, and oxygen, was subsequently found to be useful as a refractory material. Chromite 

was first exploited for the production of pigments (Gray, 1988) 

and the manufacture of refractory materials. Today, the major 

use of chromium is in the metallurgical industry to make stainless steel; substantially less chromium is used in the refractory 

and chemical industries (Papp, 1994, p. 7, 17). The major 

chromium commodity materials are chromite ore, ferrochromium, and chromium metal. The major traded chromium commodity is ferrochromium, which replaced chromite ore as the 

United States leading source of chromium between 1981 and 

1983 (Papp and Lipin, 2001, p. 32–33). Chromium commodity 

value histories have been provided for these three materials to 

meet the needs of different users of such information. At least 

since 1994, stainless steel trade has become a significant factor 

in U.S. chromium supply, with scrap exports exceeding mill 

product imports in recent years.

The structure of the chromium industry is important 

to understanding chromium material prices. Ferrochromium was originally produced mainly near stainless steel 

producers; however, production has since moved to locations in proximity to chromite ore producers. Leading ferrochromium producers are vertically integrated chromite 

ore-ferrochromium producers, and mines and plants are often 

collocated. Historically, the United States has been a major 

world producer of stainless steel and of chromium chemicals, 

but has produced only small amounts of chromite ore and 

ferrochromium. After World War II, the United States built 

a stockpile of chromium commodities for national security 

reasons. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the 

Federal Government started to sell its stockpile. The Defense 

Logistics Agency (DLA) negotiated a price for the chromium 

material with the potential purchaser. The DLA disposed of its 

stocks of metallurgical-grade chromite ore in 2001, ferrochromium silicon in 2002, chemical- and refractory-grade chromite ore in 2004, and continued selling high- and low-carbon 

ferrochromium and chromium metal into 2010. 

Import data for various forms of chromium are important 

because their value is a good indicator of price. Before 1980, 

the United States imported most of its chromium needs in the 

form of chromite ore because ferrochromium was domestically 

produced. At that time, the U.S. import value reflected average price and likely reflected world market prices because the 

United States imported a variety of grades (Papp and Lipin, 

2001, p. 28–30). Historically, when the United States imported 

all grades of chromite ore, the unit value of imports was likely 

representative of chromite ore production costs; however, 

since the United States no longer produces ferrochromium, the 

leading commercial chromium material, and refractory applications have declined significantly, chromite ore imports are 

limited to chemical production and casting sand—small and 

specialized portions of the chromite ore market. As domestic 

ferrochromium production capacity declined, imported 

ferrochromium surpassed chromite ore as the major commodity source of chromium for the United States. Stainless steel 

and stainless steel scrap trade has since grown in importance 

to the U.S. economy, rivaling that of ferrochromium. Markets 

for chromium metal developed along with the jet engine, many 

parts of which need alloys that require chromium metal.

Reported U.S. trade statistics (that is, quantity and value) 

for chromite ore date back to 1884; ferrochromium, 1910; 

and chromium metal, 1923. Trade journal prices for chromium metal go back only to 1964. Thus, chromite ore is the 

chromium commodity for which the reported historical trade 

journal price and U.S. import value series is longest (fig. 1; 

table 1). Since U.S. import data were first collected, technological changes have resulted in a change in the predominant 

grade of chromite ore and ferrochromium traded. The United 

States has been a consumer of a broad range of chromium 

materials, and to a large degree, prices of chromium-containing materials have been sustained by demand in the United 

States and other industrialized nations. As a chromium-chemical-manufacturing nation, the United States also imported 

chromite ore for chemical production. As a steel-producing 

nation, the United States imported chromite ore for refractory and alloy production. Between about 1970 and 2000, the 

United States made the transition from primarily producing 

to primarily importing ferrochromium for its steel industry. 

As a result, the United States imported declining amounts of 

metallurgical-grade chromite ore during that time period. The 

United States is a major alloy- and stainless steel-producing 

nation, and chromium ferroalloy imports, including a broad 

range of grades and sources, reflect that. The United States 

imports and exports stainless steel mill products, but mostly 

exports stainless steel scrap.

Chromite ore and other chromium materials are not 

traded on commodity or futures exchanges. Thus, the price for 

chromite ore or any other chromium material is not publicly 

negotiated or available. After surveying consumers and 

producers, some trade journals publish a composite price or 

price range based on their survey. Included among these at 

various times have been American Metal Market, Industrial 

Minerals, Metal Bulletin, Metals Price Report, Platts Metals 

Week, and Ryan’s Notes. Although the prices for chromium 
Chromium (Cr) 29

materials reported in such periodicals might represent price 

in the market being surveyed, no representation of quantity of 

trade is made. Usually, more than one source and (or) grade 

of material reported by the trade journals have disparate 

characteristics. In this situation, price is an average and does 

not apply to any specific product. A broadly descriptive 

name like “chromite ore” covers many sources and grades of 

material. The U.S. import value reported to the U.S. Customs 

Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and published by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, includes a declared value of the imported material 

estimated at the point of export. It excludes U.S. import duties, 

freight, insurance, and other charges incurred in shipping the 

merchandise to the United States. Chromite ore values are 

annual mass-weighted-average values based on quantity, content, and customs value of imports as reported in U.S. customs 

statistics.

Chromite ore is graded by its chromic oxide (Cr2O3) 

content, and its price is reported in trade journals on a grossweight basis (U.S. dollars per metric ton, gross weight). 

Commercially traded chromite ore grades range from 

35 percent to 55 percent Cr2O3. Suppose, for example, that a 

particular chromite ore is graded at 42 percent to 45 percent 

Cr2O3 and priced at $100 per metric ton, gross weight. To 

calculate the cost of the chromium contained in this material, 

remember that chromic oxide is 68.42 percent chromium. 

Consequently, 1 ton of this material then contains between 

0.287 and 0.308 ton of chromium yielding a unit value of 

between $325 and $348 per ton of contained chromium. Ferrochromium typically contains between 50 percent and 65 

percent chromium, and its price is reported in trade journals in 

dollars per pound of contained chromium. Chromium metal is 

typically in excess of 99 percent pure, and its price is reported 

in trade journals in dollars per pound, gross weight (Papp, 

1995). 

Because nonferrochromium-grade chromite ore is often 

a byproduct of ferrochromium-grade ore, ferrochromium 

industry demand is the main driving force of chromite ore 

production (O’Driscoll, 1998). The relationship is indicated by 

the lead sometimes shown by ferrochromium price compared 

to chromite ore price. Annually averaged price data show that 

price peaks for ferrochromium and chromite ore were coincident in 1982 and 1989, and ferrochromium price led chromite 

ore price in 1975–76 and 1995–96. In the first two cases, 

annual averaging hides the price change relationship. In the 

second two cases, increased demand for ferrochromium drove 

up ferrochromium prices, but the chromite ore price increase 

lagged by 1 year. 

The cause(s) of specific price changes is often not readily 

apparent, especially when reported prices do not result from 

open market activity or reflect only a portion of the market. 

Prices are negotiated between buyer and seller and remain 

confidential to them. In a general global sense, the lower price 

limit is set by the costs of production. A lower limit on price 

is cost of production, because an individual producer cannot sustain sales at a price that is less than production cost. 

Because each producer has a different cost of production 

and buyers seek to purchase at the lowest price, one would 

expect low-cost producers to satisfy demand before high-cost 

producers; the level of consumption would then determine the 

highest cost producer that could remain in the market. Since 

each producer seeks to maximize selling price, they may do so 

by selling for marginally less than the highest cost producer 

sustained by the level of consumption. The marketplace is 

likely not so well organized and orderly, since no one knows 

what is the level of consumption and what price would be sustained by it. Nor are factors like commercial relations, material 

grade and quality, and historical experience and practice taken 

into account. 

It appears that chromium commodity market prices 

fluctuate, often for no apparent reason. No markets are transparent, some are translucent, but many are opaque. That is, 

economic factors like the cost of production, the amount of 

production, the amount of consumption, price, and the amount 

of stocks held by producers, consumers, and traders are not 

commonly available information. However, sometimes events 

can be associated with price changes or a consensus as to the 

cause of price changes can be reached among market analysts, 

participants, and spectators. 

Events that affect prices can be of several types based on 

the extent of their effect: global events (events that affect a 

large part of the world), international events (events that affect 

more than one country), area events (events that affect an 

area possibly extending over more than one country), or local 

events (events that affect a limited geographic area). Examples 

of these might be as follows: global event—the recession that 

followed the world financial crisis; international events—dissolution of the Soviet Union or policy changes that resulted 

in strong economic growth in China; area event—snowslide 

damage in 2010 that interrupted rail service in Turkey limiting 

chromite ore movement from mine to port; and local event—

safety issues or equipment failures that affect one plant or 

operation. Some events may take longer than others to affect 

prices. For example, shortage of electrical power in an area 

affects manufacturers at the same time the shortage occurs; 

however, a reduction in air travel, as what happened with the 

severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) threat and after the 

September 11, 2001 (9/11) terrorist attacks, impacts the market 

more slowly and for an extended period of time. Since many 

things happen concurrently, the effect of each on prices is 

obfuscated by the cacophony of events. 

As indicated by the preceding analysis, any event that 

affects cost of production or transportation to the consumer 

would be expected to affect price. In addition, price can be 

affected by the market participants’ expectations. For example, 

futures markets are supposed to provide cost security for 

producers and consumers by integrating expected changes in 

supply and demand into a time-dependent future price that can 

be traded. If “the market” (also known as investors or speculators) expects there to be a supply shortfall/demand excess, 

prices go up; however, when the market expects there to be 

a supply excess/demand shortfall, prices go down. In effect, 
30 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

today’s expectations shaped by anticipated future events affect 

price. This appears to be a particularly useful explanation of 

price changes, especially when lacking actual and specific 

events. 

The predominant influence on the price of chromite ore 

is the relationship between supply and demand and general 

economic conditions. Stock levels relative to anticipated 

consumption also affect material price. When supply does not 

meet demand or when stocks appear to be insufficient, price is 

expected to increase. Because stainless steel is the major end 

use for chromium, world stainless steel production or anticipated production plays a major role in determining chromium 

demand and is, therefore, a major influence on chromite ore 

and ferrochromium prices. Strong demand for chromium 

from the international stainless steel market resulted in price 

increases from 1987 through 1989. Chromium industry 

production capacity growth exceeded stainless steel industry 

chromium consumption growth, which continued but at a rate 

lower than that of ferrochromium production capacity. The 

result was excess production capacity in the chromium ferroalloy industry that resulted in lower ferrochromium prices. In 

1991, the dissolution of the Soviet Union resulted in decreased 

demand for chromium from those markets and added chromium products from the Soviet Union to world markets. 

Both of these events exacerbated the downward pressure on 

ferrochromium prices. The Asian financial crisis (1997–98) 

resulted in a lower world demand for stainless steel that put 

more downward pressure on ferrochromium prices.

The chromium industry’s production-capacity expansion to meet sustained stainless steel demand was delayed 

by chromium-consuming countries and their antiapartheid 

policies, and by dissolution of the Soviet Union, an event 

that reduced demand and put chromium-containing materials 

on the market until 1994 as stocks in the Soviet Union were 

sold off. It took until 1995 for world demand to catch up with 

installed capacity as indicated by the ferrochromium value 

increase in that year. 

In 2003, the price of chromium rose following 2 consecutive years of strengthening of the South African rand against 

the U.S. dollar; in 2003 alone, the rand increased 24 percent 

against the U.S. dollar. The rising cost of ferrochromium 

production and a strengthening South African rand, along 

with increased demand for ferrochromium and limited supply 

of stainless steel scrap, caused the price of ferrochromium to 

reach historically high levels in 2004. Carbon for electrodes 

was in short supply as were electrical power and transportation 

in South Africa. From 1991 to 2006, South African chromite 

ore and ferrochromium smelter production capacity more than 

doubled while that of other countries declined. Kazakhstan 

and India became the second and third leading chromite ore 

producers. Indian chromite ore and ferrochromium production 

capacity also expanded while that of Albania, Croatia, Japan, 

Zimbabwe, and other countries decreased. 

Data for chromium consumption by the leading consumers (China, Germany, Japan, and the United States) show that 

China moved from the least amount of consumption to the 

greatest amount from 1995 to 2006 and was the only leading consumer that substantially increased its consumption. 

Percentage changes of the chromium price are similar to those 

for China’s consumption. Chromium consumption growth was 

driven throughout the time period by stainless steel production 

growth in Asia; growth in Taiwan in the early part of the time 

period; growth in the Republic of Korea and India throughout 

the time period reported here; and growth in China that started 

about 2000 and dominated the end of the time period. China’s 

growth rate was more than double that of any of the other 

countries. After 1993, chromite mine production and stainless 

steel production rose similarly. Percentage changes of world 

stainless steel and chromite mine production were similar for 

the time period. Percentage change of chromium price was 

similar to that of stainless steel production as was chromite 

mine production (Papp and others, 2007, p. 67–76).

In 2007, China had the second ranked economy after that 

of the United States. China’s impact on the mineral and metals 

markets is greater than its proportional economic size might 

indicate because China, unlike developed countries, is building infrastructure, a process that is mineral and metal intensive. Prices rise, fall, or stay the same, but generally prices 

have risen during the long term (at least in current dollars) 

and fluctuated in the short term. In addition, the magnitude of 

short-term price variations exceeds that of long-term trends. 

Looking at frequently quoted prices (such as those in the trade 

journals that report prices daily or weekly, or commodity 

exchanges that quote prices even more frequently) obscures 

long-term trends. 

Two major events that affected metal prices from 1991 to 

2006—dissolution of the Soviet Union and growth in China 

starting about 1998—may be associated with these common 

trends of production dips that were followed by declining 

prices in the early part of the time period and were coincident 

with dissolution of the Soviet Union, while rising production 

after the dip and dramatically increasing prices at the end of 

the time period were coincident with economic growth in 

China. Dissolution of the Soviet Union reduced consumption and added to supply. Sustained demand growth in China 

exceeded world supply growth and support infrastructure 

(electrical power and transportation) causing stock depletion 

and rising prices (Papp and others, 2007, p. 95–109).

The price of metallurgical grade chromite ore (40 percent 

Cr2

O3) from South Africa declined in the 1990s because of 

reduced ferrochromium consumption owing to reduced stainless steel production. Between 1999 and 2001, ferrochromium 

consumption declined owing to falling stainless steel production, increased availability of stainless steel scrap from Soviet 

Union, and high industry stocks. Since 2001, consumption has 

increased largely owing to increased demand for stainless steel 

in China. Constrained electrical supply in South Africa limited 

chromite ore and ferrochromium production resulting in a 

price surge in 2008, subsequently mitigated by the recession 

that resulted from the world financial crisis that took place 

at about that time (Roskill Information Services Ltd., 2009, 

p. 419–439).
Chromium (Cr) 31

The price of ferrochromium is strongly influenced by the 

stainless steel industry, which is cyclic; as a result so is the 

price of ferrochromium (fig. 2, table 2). Ferrochromium prices 

fluctuate more sharply than stainless steel owing to destocking 

and restocking during production cycles. The 2002 price minimum resulted from coincident falling stainless steel demand 

and ferrochromium overcapacity, high industry stocks amassed 

in 2000, and increasing availability of Russian stainless steel 

scrap. In 2003–04, stainless steel production rose driven by 

Chinese production, inventories were reduced, and ferrochromium production capacity utilization was high (90 percent for 

leading producers), the rand strengthened against the U.S. dollar (the currency of ferrochromium trade), and raw materials 

prices rose. World stainless steel production grew from 2004 

to 2008 driven by increased Chinese demand with production 

driving ferrochromium prices steadily upward. Supply issues 

in 2008 drove prices up. Ferrochromium production in South 

Africa, the leading ferrochromium supplier, was restricted by 

limited electrical power supply. Anticipated supply shortfall 

led to panic buying (investment), which drove demand over 

supply and resulted in surging prices. Global recession resulting from the global financial crisis gained momentum in 2008, 

driving demand down and bringing supply in excess, resulting 

in declining prices (Roskill Information Services Ltd., 2009, 

p. 419–439).

After World War II, gas turbine engines moved into commercial airline use and electrical power generation. They are 

now used to power civilian and military flight, electrical power 

generation and surface transportation. The high temperature 

oxidizing environments generated by these engines require 

superalloys that include chromium. The price of chromium 

metal depends on superalloy consumption, availability of Chinese and Russian metal, and processing costs (fig. 3; table 3). 

Chromium-containing superalloys are used in jet aircraft 

engines used in transportation and international travel. Severe 

acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and 9/11 reduced air 

travel (Roskill Information Services Ltd., 2009, p. 419–439) 

that was followed by reduced demand for chromium metal and 

were thought to have contributed to the chromium metal price 

decline that occurred during that time period.

References Cited

Gray, Alan, 1988, Lead chrome pigments, in Lewis, P.A., ed., 

Properties and economics: New York, Wiley-Interscience 

Publication, Pigments Handbook, v. 1, p. 315–325.

O’Driscoll, Mike, 1998, Chromite supply—A question of 

ownership: Industrial Minerals, no. 366, March, p. 51.

Papp, J.F., 1994, Chromium life cycle study: U.S. Bureau of 

Mines Information Circular 9411, 94 p.

Papp, J.F., 1995, Chromium metal: U.S. Bureau of Mines 

Information Circular 9430, 64 p.

Papp, J.F., and Lipin, B.R., 2001, Chromium: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 01–381, 161 p., accessed 

July 8, 2011, at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/djvu/OFR/2001/

ofr_01_381.djvu.

Papp, J.F., Corathers, L.A., Edelstein, D.L., Fenton, M.D., 

Kuck, P.H., and Magyar, M.J., 2007, Cr, Cu, Mn, Mo, 

Ni, and steel commodity price influences, version 1.1: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007–1257, 

50 p., accessed June 23, 2011, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/

of/2007/1257/ofr2007-1257v1.1.pdf.

Roskill Information Services Ltd., 2009, The economics of 

chromium: London, United Kingdom, Roskill Information 

Services Ltd., 11th ed., 439 p.

Weeks, M.E., and Leichester, H.M., 1968, Discovery of 

the elements (7th ed.): Easton, Pa., Journal of Chemical 

Education, 896 p.
32 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

0

50

100

150

200

250

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Dollars per metric ton, gross weight

Year

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION

Figure 1. Chromite ore value.

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Dollars per metric ton, contained chromium

Year

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION

Figure 2. Ferrochromium value.
Chromium (Cr) 33

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Dollars per metric ton, gross weight 

Year 

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION

Figure 3. Chromium metal value.

Significant events affecting chromite ore prices since 1970

1975 Price peak following that of ferrochromium

1987–89 Increased stainless steel production

1991 Dissolution of the Soviet Union

1997–98 Asian financial crisis

1998–2010 China’s economic growth

2008–09 Global financial crisis
34 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

Table 1. Chromite ore value.

[Values in dollars per metric ton, gross weight]

Year Price

1940 13

1941 12

1942 16

1943 20

1944 21

1945 21

1946 17

1947 19

1948 24

1949 22

1950 20

1951 20

1952 25

1953 28

1954 26

1955 23

1956 25

1957 27

Year Price

1958 25

1959 23

1960 19

1961 18

1962 18

1963 16

1964 18

1965 18

1966 18

1967 19

1968 19

1969 20

1970 25

1971 27

1972 29

1973 25

1974 29

1975 53

Year Price

1976 61

1977 57

1978 55

1979 60

1980 63

1981 61

1982 65

1983 60

1984 56

1985 54

1986 49

1987 49

1988 69

1989 84

1990 72

1991 71

1992 70

1993 65

Year Price

1994 69

1995 80

1996 93

1997 74

1998 74

1999 62

2000 64

2001 61

2002 60

2003 54

2004 114

2005 140

2006 141

2007 156

2008 227

2009 227

2010 230

Note:

Annual mass weighted-average chromite ore value based on quantity and declared free-on-board value of U.S. imports as reported in U.S. Customs statistics, 

as reported by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Based on U.S. chromite ore import statistics from 1946 through 2009, average chromic oxide content plus or 

minus average deviation is 43.6 ± 1.9 percent; and chromium content, 29.8 ± 1.3 percent.
Chromium (Cr) 35

Table 2. Ferrochromium value.

[Values in dollars per metric ton contained chromium. NA Not available]

Year Price

1947 295

1948 344

1949 352

1950 363

1951 411

1952 442

1953 556

1954 NA

1955 448

1956 484

1957 516

1958 540

1959 512

1960 462

1961 449

1962 435

Year Price

1963 376

1964 360

1965 395

1966 367

1967 394

1968 382

1969 370

1970 401

1971 464

1972 422

1973 392

1974 600

1975 1,061

1976 916

1977 826

1978 686

Year Price

1979 945

1980 972

1981 961

1982 1,008

1983 737

1984 833

1985 914

1986 851

1987 893

1988 1,403

1989 1,609

1990 1,017

1991 997

1992 966

1993 801

1994 767

Year Price

1995 1,322

1996 1,179

1997 1,212

1998 1,009

1999 723

2000 797

2001 709

2002 646

2003 835

2004 1,322

2005 1,425

2006 1,290

2007 1,951

2008 3,728

2009 2,085

2010 2,400

Note:

Annual mass weighted-average ferrochromium value based on content quantity and declared free-on-board value of U.S. imports as reported in U.S. Customs 

statistics by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Based on U.S. ferrochromium import statistics from 1947 through 1997, average chromium content plus or 

minus average deviation is 59.2 ± 3.4 percent.
36 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

Table 3. Chromium metal value.1

[Values in dollars per metric ton, gross weight. NA Not available]

Year Price

1956 1,852

1957 2,237

1958 1,816

1959 1,993

1960 1,998

1961 1,832

1962 1,689

1963 1,677

1964 1,670

1965 1,661

1966 NA

1967 NA

1968 1,656

1969 1,510

Year Price

1970 NA

1971 2,003

1972 2,206

1973 2,491

1974 3,030

1975 4,486

1976 4,350

1977 4,938

1978 NA

1979 NA

1980 7,682

1981 7,475

1982 6,018

1983 4,491

Year Price

1984 5,674

1985 5,468

1986 5,320

1987 6,098

1988 7,231

1989 6,566

1990 6,575

1991 7,584

1992 6,671

1993 6,143

1994 6,031

1995 6,471

1996 7,011

1997 7,403

Year Price

1998 7,569

1999 6,267

2000 5,976

2001 6,116

2002 5,767

2003 5,272

2004 5,823

2005 8,007

2006 8,181

2007 8,331

2008 11,078

2009 9,896

2010 10,000

1

Annual mass weighted-average chromium metal value based on quantity and declared free-on-board value of U.S. imports as reported in U.S. Customs statistics 

reported by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Chromium metal is typically in excess of 99-percent pure.
Cobalt (Co) 37

Cobalt (Co)

by Kim B. Shedd

The element cobalt was named after “kobald,” a mythical 

spirit of Germanic folklore. Medieval miners thought that 

kobalds poisoned their copper ores, but the actual culprits 

were the arsenic-bearing cobalt minerals cobaltite and smaltite 

(Young, 1960, p. 1–4). 

The earliest known use of cobalt was to color blue glass 

beads more than 4,000 years ago in ancient Persia. In the early 

1900s, the glass and ceramics industries were still the leading 

consumers of cobalt. During the next 4 decades, many new 

uses were developed for cobalt metal and its compounds, and 

by the mid-1940s, many of cobalt’s current uses had been 

developed (Davis, 1948; Young, 1960, p. 1–4). By 2010, 

cobalt was used in numerous diverse commercial, industrial, 

and military applications, many of which were considered 

strategic and critical. On a global basis, the leading use of 

cobalt was in rechargeable battery electrodes. Superalloys, 

which were used to make parts for gas turbine engines, were 

another major use for cobalt. Cobalt metal or chemicals also 

were used to make catalysts for the petroleum and chemical 

industries; cemented carbides (also called hardmetals) and 

diamond tools; corrosion- and wear-resistant alloys; drying 

agents for inks, paints, and varnishes; dyes and pigments; 

ground coats for porcelain enamels; high-speed steels; magnetic recording media; magnets; and rubber-adhesion promoters for steel-belted radial tires. 

Various forms of cobalt metal, including briquettes, 

cathode (electrolytic cobalt), fines, granules (shot), ingot, 

powder, and rondelles, have been produced and marketed. 

Cobalt prices presented in the table for 1969 onward are for 

cobalt cathode, which is produced by electrowinning (fig. 1; 

table 1). In the electrolytic cell, cobalt metal is deposited on a 

permanent cathode, usually as a sheet of cobalt metal. Following removal from the cathode, the sheet of cobalt can be 

broken into small pieces and sold as “broken cathode” or cut 

into squares and sold as “cut cathode.” In 2010, U.S. spot 

prices quoted in Platts Metals Week were for cathode with a 

minimum cobalt content of 99.8 percent.

In addition to general economic conditions and supplyand-demand fundamentals, other factors have influenced 

cobalt prices over time. Although the number of producers has 

increased, cobalt has been produced in a limited number of 

countries. The Democratic Republic of the Congo [also known 

as Congo (Kinshasa) and formerly as Zaire or the Belgian 

Congo] has been the dominant cobalt producer for most of the 

period since the 1920s. Therefore, political and civil unrest 

in that country has affected cobalt supply and prices. Until 

late 1990, when a mine collapse in Zaire led to reduced mine 

production and an increase in recovery of cobalt from stockpiled partially refined materials, most cobalt was produced as 

a byproduct of either copper or nickel mining, resulting in a 

certain degree of supply inelasticity. Cobalt is considered to 

be a strategic and critical metal, and as a result, purchases for 

and sales from Government stockpiles have added to demand 

and supply, respectively. Finally, the reasons for cobalt price 

changes are not always evident, and sometimes have been 

attributed to market manipulation, perceptions of supply-anddemand conditions, or speculation. 

Prior to the mid-1990s, the price of cobalt metal was 

set primarily by producers. Before World War II, the leading 

Belgian, British, Canadian, Finnish, and French producers 

agreed to control cobalt supply and to maintain a uniform 

price. Following the War, prices quoted by the Belgian Congo 

were generally followed by other producers (Young, 1960, 

p. 8). From the mid-1980s through the mid-1990s, Zaire and 

Zambia cooperated in setting the producer price (Jones, 1986; 

Cobalt Development Institute, 1987). During times when producers controlled the market, the majority of cobalt sales were 

conducted directly between producers or their sales agents and 

consumers. These sales were conducted under medium- or 

long-term agreements at the producer price or at the producer 

price discounted for quality and quantity. In the early 1990s, 

the African producers lost much of their influence on cobalt 

prices (Kielty, 1992, p. 2). This was the result of reduced 

production from Zaire and Zambia at a time when an increasing amount of cobalt was entering the free market from other 

countries. The producer price was renamed the “reference 

price” in 1994, but lost its relevance within a few years. In 

2010, cobalt was sold either under contract with a producer or 

on the free market. The volume of free market sales has varied 

over time and from country to country.

In the free market, sales are negotiated between producers and consumers, traders and consumers, or traders and other 

traders. Cobalt can originate from producers, either officially 

or unofficially; from Government stockpile releases; or from 

consumers with excess metal. Free market prices published 

by trade journals, such as Metal Bulletin, Platts Metals Week, 

and Ryan’s Notes, are derived from information collected from 

producers, consumers, and traders. This approach provides 

historic rather than current prices, is not fully transparent, 

relies on the knowledge and experience of the journalist(s) 

compiling the prices, and has the potential for bias or manipulation, particularly when a reported price change is the result 

of a small tonnage of material traded (Tunna, 2004; Roskill 

Information Services Ltd., 2011, p. 223).

Historically, cobalt prices were relatively stable until 

the late 1970s, when a series of events resulted in concerns 
38 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

about cobalt supply and a rapid increase in prices to more than 

$40 per pound. The key factors and events leading up to the 

“cobalt crisis” included the cessation of cobalt sales from the 

U.S. Government stockpile in 1976, a drawdown of Zairian 

producer inventories following 2 years of sales exceeding 

production, a sharp increase in demand, a reduction in cobalt 

allocations by the Zairian producer, limited world cobalt 

production capacity, and an invasion of the copper-cobalt 

mining region in Zaire (Mining Journal, 1979; Kirk, 1985). 

Although Zaire’s annual production actually exceeded that of 

the previous year, the “cobalt crisis” had long-term impacts 

on the cobalt market. For the first time in many years, a strong 

free market in cobalt developed, and cobalt prices became 

unstable.

Following the “crisis,” production capacity and recycling 

and recovery of cobalt from secondary materials increased, 

and consumers began conserving or substituting cobalt 

where possible. The recession in the early 1980s added to the 

reduction in demand and an oversupply developed (Kielty, 

1988). Beginning in the mid-1980s, Zaire and Zambia worked 

together to stabilize cobalt prices. They established a joint 

producer price and limited sales of cobalt to the free market 

(Kramer and Salak, 1984). In addition, Zaire acted as a “swing 

producer” by reducing its production and inventories to meet 

demand (Kielty, 1990, p. 2–3, 10). From late 1986 until mid1990, Zaire and Zambia were successful in returning stability 

to cobalt prices.

Free market price stability ended during the second 

half of 1990. In early 1990, delayed shipments from African 

producers, planned cutbacks in nickel production by Canadian 

nickel-cobalt producers, assumptions regarding reduced inventory levels in Zaire, and tightening of free market cobalt supplies caused concern about future cobalt availability. In July, 

the free market cobalt price began to rise following reports of 

strikes in Zaire and political unrest in Zambia. News of a cavein at Zaire’s Kamoto copper cobalt mine in late September 

added to concerns about cobalt availability.

During 1990, Russia began exporting cobalt to Western 

markets. The breakup of the Soviet Union, a reduction in 

cobalt consumption by the Russian military sector, and an 

increase in demand for hard currency led to increased exports 

in 1991. As a result, Russia became a net exporter of cobalt, 

and Russian cobalt developed into a significant component of 

Western supply. Most of this cobalt was sold by traders in the 

free market.

 The free market cobalt price slowly decreased during 

the first 9 months of 1991. Speculation continued during this 

period regarding potential supply shortages, but demand was 

limited by the economic recession. Political and economic 

tensions in Zaire continued to increase. The price of cobalt 

began to rapidly increase following news of renewed unrest 

in September and October and increased to more than $30 per 

pound in December 1991 through January 1992.

During 1992 and 1993, the free market cobalt price 

trended downward to approximately $11 per pound by early 

December 1993. The decrease was attributed to reduced consumption because of lower U.S. defense spending, a decrease 

in demand from the commercial aircraft sector, and an overall 

economic downturn in the United States, Europe, and Japan; 

reduced demand because of a drawdown of consumer inventories; and good availability of cobalt on the free market.

Despite several years of decline in world refined cobalt 

production, supplies of cobalt remained adequate through 

most of 1993. The U.S. Government began selling excess 

cobalt from the National Defense Stockpile (NDS) in 1993. 

The NDS cobalt was available to traders as well as to consumers, thus providing more cobalt to the free market. Although 

cobalt from the NDS and Russia was a lower quality than that 

typically offered to the market, consumers found ways to take 

advantage of the availability and lower cost of cobalt from 

these sources.

Beginning in mid-December 1993 and ending in mid-January 1994, the free market cobalt price more than doubled and 

reached a high of $24 per pound. This price increase reflected 

a growing concern about cobalt supply prompted by delays by 

the African producers in announcing their 1994 pricing policy, 

consumers’ reduced inventory levels resulting from buying 

on an as-needed basis, press reports that the copper-cobalt 

mining region in Zaire had declared autonomy from the rest 

of the country, expectations for reduced production in 1994, 

and traders’ reports of reduced supplies of Russian cobalt. The 

magnitude and speed of the price increase, however, suggested 

market manipulation (Kielty, 1994). In 1994, world mine production of cobalt fell to its lowest level in 30 years.

In 1994 and 1995, the supply of cobalt increased. World 

production increased, cobalt from Russia and the NDS 

continued to contribute to supply, and the amount of cobalt 

recovered from intermediate materials and recycled from scrap 

increased. Economic conditions improved, and world demand 

increased. During this 2-year period, the free market price 

was high and somewhat unstable, although the overall trend 

was upward, reaching more than $32 per pound by December 

1995. High cobalt prices, combined with forecasts for large 

increases in nickel demand, resulted in the initiation of a substantial number of projects that could produce cobalt within 3 

to 6 years, either as a byproduct of nickel or copper mining or 

from the processing of cobalt-bearing intermediate materials 

stockpiled during past copper production.

Beginning in 1996, the annual average free market cobalt 

price began a 7-year decline, in spite of significant short-term 

fluctuations in price during the period. World cobalt production continued to increase in 1996 and was expected to 

continue to trend upward, owing to expanded production from 

existing nickel producers, renewed interest in investing in 

Congo (Kinshasa)’s copper-cobalt industry, and the anticipation of significant amounts of cobalt production from refining 

nickel laterite ores using new pressure acid leaching technology (Day, 1996; Searle, 1997). Market sentiment shifted from 

concern about availability to forecasts of potential oversupply 

as future production increased at a faster rate than demand 

(Ryan’s Notes, 1996). Demand remained strong, but the free 
Cobalt (Co) 39

market cobalt price fell below $21 per pound during the second half of 1996.

During 1997, world production was approximately equal 

to that of 1996, and demand remained strong. The free market 

cobalt price fluctuated between approximately $19 and $26 

per pound. From 1998 to early 1999, the price declined from a 

high of approximately $26 per pound in January 1998 to a low 

of $8 per pound in January 1999. This price decrease suggests 

that plenty of cobalt was available to meet demand. World production and sales and shipments of cobalt from the NDS were 

higher in 1998 than in 1997. Additional possible contributing 

factors for decreasing prices included reduced demand from 

the former Soviet Union; consumers buying only as needed, 

drawing down inventories, and delaying purchases while waiting for the price to bottom out; producers offering cobalt at 

low prices to reduce their inventories and (or) to gain market 

share; and traders pushing down prices to buy cheaper cobalt 

at a later date and (or) to gain market share (Cobalt Development Institute, 1999; Metal Bulletin, 1999; Ryan’s Notes, 

1999; Searle, 1999).

The free market cobalt price increased sharply in late 

January 1999 and by mid-February had more than doubled to 

$20 per pound. It then gradually declined until midyear, when 

it increased to more than $22 per pound. High prices during 

the first half of 1999 may have been from concern about a 

pending shortage in supply, which did not materialize. One 

analyst attributed the rise to market manipulation, although 

reduced inventory levels were noted (Cobalt Development 

Institute, 2000; Kielty, 2000). 

In 1999, an Australian nickel producer introduced an 

Internet-based system for selling its cobalt. The Cobalt Open 

Sales System listed the availability and asking prices of the 

company’s cobalt, as well as information on sales. For the 

next decade, this system offered some market transparency 

and was considered a benchmark for cobalt prices, in spite of 

representing only a small portion of the total market. During this period, several producers and other suppliers briefly 

sold cobalt via the Internet (WMC Ltd., 1999; Metal Bulletin, 

2000). 

Following the highs of mid-1999, the free market cobalt 

price generally trended downward for several years. From 

1999 through 2003, cobalt supply steadily increased, owing 

to increases in production and continuing shipments of excess 

cobalt from the NDS. Global demand for cobalt increased until 

2001, when it decreased for the first time since 1992 owing 

to weak economic conditions in major consuming countries 

such as the United States and Japan, and a decrease in the 

production of rechargeable batteries owing to high inventories. 

The terrorist attacks in the United States on September 11, 

2001, led to economic uncertainty, concern that renewed U.S. 

industrial activity would be delayed, and financial problems 

for the U.S. commercial airline industry, a major consumer of 

superalloys (Searle, 2002; Shedd, 2002).

The free market cobalt price remained weak for most 

of 2002. U.S. consumption declined, particularly from the 

superalloy sector; global cobalt production continued to 

increase, and by September, the price had dropped to a low of 

$6 per pound. From late 2002 through early 2004, the price 

increased—first gradually, then steeply, to reach a peak of $29 

per pound in January 2004. The increase was attributed to tight 

supply owing to a decrease in the production of refined cobalt 

in Congo (Kinshasa), an apparent change in the sales strategy 

for Russian cobalt, a brief strike at a Canadian nickel-cobalt 

operation, increased consumption from China and the battery industry, expectations of increased consumption from the 

superalloy industry, and a buildup of stocks by consumers and 

traders. In 2004, China imported increasing amounts of cobalt 

ores and concentrates from Congo (Kinshasa) and became the 

world’s leading producer of refined cobalt; more than one-half 

of China’s cobalt consumption was for battery production 

(Metal Bulletin, 2003; Searle, 2004; Chen, 2005; Tomlinson, 

2005; Roskill Information Services, Ltd., 2007, p. 287). 

Following the peak in early 2004, the free market cobalt 

price generally trended downward for the next 2 years, reaching a low of nearly $12 per pound in late 2005. Supply and 

demand were roughly in balance. From 2006 through early 

2008, the price was unstable but gradually and then steeply 

trended upward as demand for cobalt increased and supply 

tightened. The price doubled in 2006, and then doubled again 

by March 2008, when it reached a peak of $54 per pound. The 

escalation in price was attributed to concern about availability 

during a period of good demand for cobalt from all consuming sectors. Contributing factors included reductions in power 

supply to African producers, lost production by an Australian 

producer following an interruption in gas supply, and low 

producer inventories. A consolidation of cobalt suppliers was 

also cited as contributing to increased prices. In late 2006, the 

leading Russian producer committed most of its cobalt output 

to the world’s leading cobalt refiner under a 5-year supply 

agreement, and shortly thereafter, a leading trading firm was 

selected to market all of the cobalt produced in Norway. During this time, much of the increase in consumption was for 

the production of batteries in China, which depended heavily 

on imported raw materials. Reduced exports of unprocessed 

cobalt concentrates from Congo (Kinshasa) in 2006 and 2007 

led Chinese consumers to draw down stocks in 2007 to meet 

demand (Ryan’s Notes, 2006; Cobalt Development Institute, 

2007, 2008; Roskill Information Services, Ltd., 2007, p. 288; 

Baker, 2008, p. 3, 5, 8–9; Darton Commodities Ltd., 2008, 

p. 1, 3, 5).

Following the peak in March 2008, the free market cobalt 

price declined sharply as exports of raw materials from Congo 

(Kinshasa) increased, Chinese production of refined cobalt 

increased, and consumers postponed purchases in a declining 

market. By August, the price had decreased by more than 50 

percent to approximately $25 per pound. It rebounded briefly 

to nearly $39 per pound in September, before decreasing to 

less than $13 per pound in December. The decrease during the 

fourth quarter of 2008 was in response to the global financial 

crisis and economic downturn that followed. These events 

caused reduced demand for commodities and rapidly decreasing prices, which led to reductions in cobalt production and 
40 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

delays to future production from new projects (Darton Commodities Ltd., 2008, p. 1, 3, 5–6; Platts Metals Week, 2008; 

Seeking Alpha, 2008). 

During 2009, the free market cobalt price was unstable, 

but generally trended upward, reaching a high of $23.50 per 

pound in November. Global demand was less than that of 

2008, despite an increase from China, and global production of refined cobalt was higher than that of 2008. Higher 

prices towards the end of the year were attributed to increased 

demand, particularly from the battery sector, combined with 

concerns about short-term supply because of strikes in Canada 

and a delayed restart of production from a Zambian refinery. 

Speculative purchases in advance of the launch of a cobalt 

futures contract on the London Metal Exchange (LME) were 

also cited as contributing to higher prices (CRU International 

Ltd., 2009, p. 5).

The LME cobalt futures contract was launched in February 2010. Under terms of the contract, cobalt metal was to be 

traded in 1-metric-ton lots of minimum 99.3-percent cobalt 

with warehouses in Asia, Europe, and the United States as 

delivery points. By yearend, cobalt from 11 producers had 

been approved for delivery against the contract. Before the 

cobalt contract was launched, some companies announced 

that they planned to use LME cobalt prices as reference prices 

for their sales contracts (Metal Bulletin, 2010; London Metal 

Exchange Ltd., The, 2010).

Although the free market cobalt price fluctuated during 

2010, the overall trend was downward to a low of $16 per 

pound in November, before recovering slightly by yearend. 

Cobalt demand increased with the improved global economic 

situation and increased industrial activity, and was higher than 

that of 2007, the year preceding the global financial crisis. 

Supply also increased, particularly from production from 

new copper-cobalt operations in Congo (Kinshasa). Global 

increases in cobalt supply from existing producers and new 

projects were expected to outpace increases in consumption 

within a few years, which could lead to an oversupply of 

cobalt and downward pressure on prices (Collignon, 2011).

References Cited

Baker, Calum, 2008, Strategic issues for cobalt: The Cobalt 

Conference, Cobalt Development Institute, Toronto, 

Ontario, Canada, May 14–15, 2008, Presentation, 23 p.

Chen, Guang-yu, 2005, China cobalt market update: The 

Cobalt Conference, Cobalt Development Institute, Paris, 

May 18–19, 2005, Presentation, 8 p.

Cobalt Development Institute, 1987, Statistics: Cobalt News, 

March, p. 9–10.

Cobalt Development Institute, 1999, Statistics review 1998: 

Cobalt News, April, p. 12–13.

Cobalt Development Institute, 2000, Comment: Cobalt News, 

January, p. 2.

Cobalt Development Institute, 2007, Comment: Cobalt News, 

April, p. 2.

Cobalt Development Institute, 2008, Comment: Cobalt News, 

January, p. 2.

Collignon, Maartje, 2011, The global outlook for cobalt: The 

Cobalt Conference, Cobalt Development Institute, Hong 

Kong, China, May 18–19, 2011, Presentation, 9 p.

CRU International Ltd., 2009, CRU monitor—Nickel cobalt 

intermediates: London, United Kingdom, CRU International 

Ltd., November, 14 p.

Darton Commodities Ltd., 2008, Cobalt market review—

December 2008: Guildford, United Kingdom, Darton 

Commodities Ltd., December 17, 14 p.

Davis, H.W., 1948, Cobalt, in Minerals yearbook 1946: 

U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 391–399.

Day, Martyn, 1996, Future sources of cobalt: Cobalt News, 

July, p. 11–16.

Jones, Monique, 1986, Cobalt market—1985 review: Cobalt 

News, March, p. 6–10.

Kielty, Edward, 1988, Cobalt—More stable times: Metals 

Week nickel, moly, cobalt conference, Tucson, Ariz., 

October 26–28, 1988, Presentation, 13 p.

Kielty, Edward, 1990, What next for cobalt?—1991—A year 

to manage change: Metals Week Conference, Tucson, Ariz., 

October 25–26, 1990, Presentation, 26 p.

Kielty, Edward, 1992, Cobalt review and outlook: Metals 

Week Ferroalloys Conference, Tucson, Ariz., November 

5–6, 1992, Presentation, 22 p.

Kielty, Edward, 1994, Cobalt—An unpredictable market: 

Engineering and Mining Journal, v. 195, no. 3, March, 

p. 28–30. 

Kielty, Edward, 2000, Cobalt—Where we have been is where 

we are: Engineering and Mining Journal, v. 201, no. 3, 

March, p. 19–21. 

Kirk, W.S., 1985, A third pricing phase—Stability?: American 

Metal Market, v. 93, no. 163, August 23, p. 9, 12.

Kramer, David, and Salak, John, 1984, Cobalt $11.70/lb.—

Zaire, Zambia: American Metal Market, v. 92, no. 52, 

March 15, p. 1, 16.
Cobalt (Co) 41

London Metal Exchange Ltd., The, 2010, Minor metals—

LME cobalt and LME molybdenum: London, United 

Kingdom, London Metal Exchange brochure, 6 p., accessed 

February 8, 2011, at http://www.lme.com/downloads/LMEMinor-Metal-brochure-V2-1210.pdf.

Metal Bulletin, 1999, Consumers and producers wary of cobalt 

market: Metal Bulletin, no. 8341, January 11, p. 11.

Metal Bulletin, 2000, Opening up the cobalt market: Metal 

Bulletin, no. 8474, May 11, p. 19.

Metal Bulletin, 2003, Has cobalt’s time come?: Metal Bulletin, 

no. 8822, December 29, p. 14.

Metal Bulletin, 2010, LN Metals agrees LME formula Co 

contract with Jiangsu: Metal Bulletin, no. 9136, February 

15, p. 16.

Mining Journal, 1979, Cobalt, in Mining annual review 1979: 

Mining Journal, 1979, p. 80–81.

Platts Metals Week, 2008, Cobalt markets cool amid supplier/consumer standoff: Platts Metals Week, v. 79, no. 17, 

April 28, p. 11–12.

Roskill Information Services Ltd., 2007, The economics of 

cobalt: London, United Kingdom, Roskill Information Services Ltd., 11th ed., 291 p.

Roskill Information Services Ltd., 2011, Tungsten—Market outlook to 2016: London, United Kingdom, Roskill 

Information Services Ltd., 10th ed., 230 p.

Ryan’s Notes, 1996, Processing of cobalt intermediates could 

lead to more market stability, v. 2, no. 22, May 27, p. 1.

Ryan’s Notes, 1999, Cobalt prices are hanging by a thread, 

v. 5, no. 1, January 4, p. 2.

Ryan’s Notes, 2006, OMG to use and sell Norilsk’s Co: Ryan’s 

Notes, v. 12, no. 47, November 27, p. 1–2.

Searle, Peter, 1997, Strategic issues for cobalt: Cobalt News, 

April, p. 7–10.

Searle, Peter, 1999, 1998 was indeed a remarkable year, but...: 

The Cobalt Conference, Cobalt Development Institute, 

London, May 26–27, 1999, Presentation, 8 p.

Searle, Peter, 2002, Strategic directions for cobalt as seen in 

2002: The Cobalt Conference, Cobalt Development Institute, Paris, May 14–15, 2002, Presentation, 9 p.

Searle, Peter, 2004, A strategic view of the cobalt market: The 

Cobalt Conference, Cobalt Development Institute, Toronto, 

Ontario, Canada, May 19–20, 2004, Presentation, 12 p.

Seeking Alpha, 2008, OM Group, Inc. Q2 2008 earnings call transcript, August 7, accessed May 3, 2012, at 

http://seekingalpha.com/article/90304-om-group-inc-q2-

2008-earnings-call-transcript.

Shedd, K.B., 2002, Cobalt: U.S. Geological Survey Mineral 

Commodity Summaries 2002, p. 50–51.

Tomlinson, Philip, 2005, Strategic issues for cobalt: The 

Cobalt Conference, Cobalt Development Institute, Paris, 

May 18–19, 2005, Presentation, 7 p.

Tunna, Nigel, 2004, Pricing mechanisms for the cobalt market: 

The Cobalt Conference, Cobalt Development Institute, 

Toronto, Ontario, Canada, May 19–20, 2004, Presentation, 

7 p.

WMC Ltd., 1999, WMC markets cobalt on the internet: 

Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, WMC Ltd. press release, 

August 16, 1 p.

Young, R.S., 1960, Cobalt—Its chemistry, metallurgy, and 

uses: New York, Reinhold Publishing Corp., 424 p.
42 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Dollars per pound

Year

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION

Figure 1. Average annual cobalt prices.
Cobalt (Co) 43

Significant events affecting cobalt prices since 1970

1970–76 Sales of significant quantities of cobalt from U.S. Government stockpile

1978 Strong cobalt demand; Zaire’s copper cobalt mining region invaded; free market developed

1981–82 Sharp recession

1984 Zaire and Zambia established a joint producer price and limited sales of cobalt to the free market

1990 Strikes in Zaire and political unrest in Zambia; cave-in at Zaire’s Kamoto copper cobalt mine; Russia began 

exporting cobalt to Western markets

1990–91 Recession

1991 Unrest in Zaire; dissolution of the Soviet Union and increased cobalt exports from Russia

1992–93 Economic downturn and decrease in U.S. defense spending

1993–94 Low global production and concern about cobalt supply led to a sharp increase in prices

1993–2009 Sales of cobalt from the U.S. Government stockpile

1994–2005 Yearly increases in global production of refined cobalt

1994 Zaire’s and Zambia’s producer price was changed to a reference price

1995 Last year that Zaire’s and Zambia’s reference price was updated

1995–2010 Rapid increase in use of cobalt to make rechargeable batteries 

1996 Shift from concern about potential undersupply to potential oversupply

1996–97 Zaire renamed the Democratic Republic of the Congo following a change in administration; renewed interest in 

investing in Congo’s copper-cobalt industry

1998 First cobalt production from new pressure acid leaching technology for refining nickel laterite ores

1999–2009 Internet-based cobalt sales via Cobalt Open Sales System

2001 September 11th terrorist attacks in the United States; first year that global cobalt demand decreased since 1992; 

beginning of rapid increase in Chinese production and consumption of refined cobalt

2001–02 Slowdown in world economy

2003–04 Tight supply during a period of increasing demand

2003 Batteries overtook superalloys as leading use of cobalt

2004 China became the world’s leading producer of refined cobalt

2006–07 Reduced exports of raw materials from Congo (Kinshasa); consolidation of cobalt suppliers

2008–09 Financial crisis and global economic downturn

2010 Launch of cobalt contract on the London Metal Exchange (LME)
44 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

Table 1. Annual average cobalt price.

[Values in dollars per pound]

Year Price

1937 1.29 

1938 1.36 

1939 1.40 

1940 1.50 

1941 1.50 

1942 1.50 

1943 1.50 

1944 1.50 

1945 1.50 

1946 1.50 

1947 1.58 

1948 1.65 

1949 1.76 

1950 1.80 

1951 2.18 

1952 2.40 

1953 2.43 

1954 2.60 

1955 2.60 

Year Price

1956 2.58 

1957 2.03 

1958 2.00 

1959 1.77 

1960 1.54 

1961 1.50 

1962 1.50 

1963 1.50 

1964 1.50 

1965 1.63 

1966 1.65 

1967 1.85 

1968 1.85 

1969 1.92 

1970 2.20 

1971 2.20 

1972 2.45 

1973 3.04 

1974 3.47 

Year Price

1975 3.98 

1976 4.47 

1977 5.62 

1978 24.52 

1979 32.83 

1980 21.82 

1981 15.67 

1982 8.56 

1983 5.76 

1984 10.44 

1985 11.43 

1986 7.49 

1987 6.56 

1988 7.09 

1989 7.64 

1990 10.09 

1991 16.92 

1992 22.93 

1993 13.79 

Year Price

1994 24.66 

1995 29.21 

1996 25.50 

1997 23.34 

1998 21.43 

1999 17.02 

2000 15.16 

2001 10.55 

2002 6.91 

2003 10.60 

2004 23.93 

2005 15.96 

2006 17.22 

2007 30.55 

2008 39.01 

2009 17.86 

2010 20.85 

Notes: Annual average prices were derived from price changes reported in the following sources:

1937–77, contract or producer price, domestic quotation for cobalt metal, in U.S. Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook; origins of prices are unknown.

1978, free market price, cobalt metal, in Engineering and Mining Journal, v. 180, no. 3, 1979, p. 138.

1979, free market price, cobalt metal, in Engineering and Mining Journal, v. 181, no. 3, 1980, p. 112.

1980, European free market price, 99.5-percent cobalt metal, in Metal Bulletin Handbook, 1981, p. 73.

1981, European free market price, 99.5-percent cobalt metal, in Metal Bulletin Handbook, 1982, p. 51, and U.S. spot price, 99.5-percent cobalt cathode, in

Metals Week.

1982–92, U.S. spot price, 99.5-percent cobalt cathode, in Metals Week.

1993, U.S. spot price, 99.8-percent cobalt cathode, in Metals Week.

1994–2010, U.S. spot price, 99.8-percent cobalt cathode, in Platts (Platt’s) Metals Week.
Copper (Cu) 45

Copper (Cu)

by Daniel L. Edelstein

Copper, the first metal used by humans more than 10,000 

years ago, is one of the most important materials in the 

development of civilization. Though copper is usually found 

in nature in association with sulfur, native copper metal found 

in a few places around the world was the most likely source 

of early copper used first for decorative and then for utilitarian purposes. The alloying of copper with tin to form bronze, 

a harder, stronger, and more readily cast metal, gave rise to an 

era bearing its name. With the dawn of the industrial revolution in Europe and the first transmission of electricity in the 

18th century, demand for greater quantities and higher purity 

led to significant improvements in the mining, processing, and 

refining of copper metal. Its relatively low-cost availability 

and excellent electrical conductivity (second only to silver), 

combined with its properties of high ductility and thermal conductivity, malleability, and corrosion resistance, have resulted 

in copper becoming a major industrial metal that ranks third 

after iron and aluminum in terms of quantities used. Currently, 

more than 70 percent of copper used is in electric and electronic applications distributed throughout all sectors of the 

economy, and it is ubiquitous in our lives through use in the 

generation and distribution of electricity and the circuitry of 

all of our electronic items. Other uses include plumbing tube, 

heat exchangers, building hardware and roofing, and coinage. 

New uses of copper are found in such applications as siliconbased computer chips, solar and wind power generation, 

superconducting cables for the electric grid, antimicrobial 

touch surfaces, and rotors in energy-efficient motors. 

Historically, wirebar was the dominant form of copper traded, and the price for refined copper wirebar was the 

“bellwether” price for copper. By the mid-1970s, however, 

technology had changed to continuous casting and drawing 

of wire rod directly from refined cathode, thus bypassing the 

need to cast wirebar. Even though more than 50 percent of 

primary copper produced in the United States is traded as rod 

by integrated mine producers, the high-grade copper cathode 

price is used as the “base” price for most transactions.

About 60 percent of domestic primary refined copper 

is produced from a multistage process, beginning with the 

mining and concentrating of ores, and followed by smelting 

and electrolytic refining to produce a high-grade cathode. The 

remaining 40 percent is produced from acid leaching of copper 

ores and wastes and solvent extraction and electrowinning of 

refined copper from the pregnant solution. Though historically 

most domestic producers have had a high degree of vertical 

integration, copper products from each stage of processing 

have their own independent markets and are traded globally. 

Each product has its own pricing procedure that is linked, 

for the most part, to its copper content and the market price 

for refined copper. For example, copper concentrates, which 

contain between 20 percent and 35 percent copper, are purchased on the basis of the refined copper market value of their 

recoverable copper content, with charges taken for smelting 

and refining. Penalties may be assessed by the smelter/refiner 

for unwanted contaminants or low grade, and credits may be 

given for recoverable byproducts. Even though the smelting 

and refining charges are driven by processing cost factors, they 

may fluctuate significantly according to the market balance 

for concentrates and may be influenced by copper prices in 

protected markets and price sharing arrangements with miners. 

Similarly, prices for copper scrap are discounted from the 

refined value of the recoverable copper content to allow for 

processing costs and profit. Though the discount from refined 

copper must be sufficient to account for processing costs, 

market conditions for each type of scrap will affect the price. 

Until the late 1970s, domestic copper prices were generally referenced to the U.S. producer price (fig.1; table 1). The 

traditional U.S. producer price, which normally included a 

charge for delivery and insurance, was based on annually 

negotiated sales contracts, with prices changing at least quarterly. The producer price system offered stability and served 

the interests of both the producer and the consumer. Producer 

prices tended to be higher than commodity exchange prices 

during weak markets and less than the exchange prices during 

high demand periods. During periods of tight supply, U.S. 

mills, most of which were producer-owned subsidiaries, were 

given allocations assuring them of reasonably priced supplies. 

Although the producer pricing provided stability for contract 

purchases, it created a two-tiered price structure, where spot 

purchases and exchange prices were significantly different 

from producer prices. During the peak demand period of the 

Vietnam War, 1964–69, the average London Metal Exchange 

Ltd. spot price was $0.575 per pound, compared with only 

$0.38 per pound for the domestic producer price.

Beginning with the nationalization of foreign production in Africa and Chile in the 1960s and early 1970s, the U.S. 

producers’ influence on domestic and world markets weakened, and domestic producer pricing became more market 

sensitive, changing frequently to track global prices. Periods 

of surplus supply, which took place from the mid-1970s to the 

mid-1980s also contributed to the decreased influence of U.S. 

producer prices on world markets as surplus supplies flowed to 

the exchanges. As a result, U.S. producers abandoned classic 

producer pricing, some in 1978 and others in the early 1980s, 

and changed to a COMEX-based pricing system. Using the 

first-position COMEX price as a base, producers began to 
46 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

quote premiums that generally included transportation and 

insurance costs (Jolly, 1991). The producer price quote came 

to reflect a weighted average of the delivered price of copper to domestic consumers by domestic producers. Since the 

adoption of COMEX-based pricing, the producer price margin 

has averaged about 5 cents per pound of copper, generally 

increasing at times of low prices and decreasing during high 

prices and ranging between an annual average of 2 cents and 

7 cents per pound. During the high-price period from 2004 to 

2010, the producer premium averaged 5.6 cents per pound, 

not significantly different from the 30-year average. While the 

traditional producer prices provided a buffer to price shifts, 

speculative influence on a COMEX-based pricing system has 

resulted in increased price volatility, especially during tight 

markets, such as from late 1987 through 1989, 1995 through 

1997, and 2003 through 2010. Periods of stock surpluses and 

generally lower prices tend to create greater price stability. 

In response to the greater volatility of COMEX-based pricing, producers and consumers have increasingly used futures 

markets to hedge their sales and purchases.

Strike periods that take place with expiration of labor 

contracts have a significant effect on copper prices. The two 

6-month strikes in 1946 and 1959, the 9-month strike in 

1967–68, and the 5-month strike in 1980 were of particular 

significance. The 1967–68 strike had the most significant 

impact because it coincided with a period of high international 

demand occasioned by the Vietnam War and an unusually high 

period of worldwide economic growth. Government releases 

of stockpile material were used to alleviate shortages during 

each of these incidents, with the exception of the 1980 strike, 

which took place during a period of high commercial inventories and low Government stocks.

Since at least 1990, mines with capacities that are larger 

than 100,000 metric tons per year (t/yr) of copper have 

constituted from 65 percent to 70 percent of global copper 

mine capacity, and the largest 20 copper mines have accounted 

for about 40 percent of global capacity. Given a frequently 

close balance between production and consumption, disruptions to production at any given large mine can affect prices. 

For example, from 1989 to 1991, a series of events tempered what might have otherwise been a modest oversupply 

period. These events included political insurgencies and labor 

strikes at foreign producers that closed a 180,000-t/yr mine in 

Papua New Guinea and severely reduced production in Zaire 

[now Congo (Kinshasa)]. In 2003, in the face of high global 

inventories, the leading global copper mine producer altered 

its mine plan by processing lower grade ores and effectively 

reducing its capacity by 200,000 t/yr of copper. Similarly, a pit 

wall failure in Indonesia and a mine strike in Mexico reduced 

production and contributed to a price spike in 2006. 

Governments’ interventions in economic policies or 

directly in copper markets have had significant effects on copper prices. The U.S. Government has taken action during periods of war and national emergency to control prices and levy 

tariffs, to impose export quotas, to provide price supports, to 

lend monies for expansion and exploration, to guarantee production purchases, and to buy and sell for the national stockpile. Most of these strategies, including the use of price controls (1971–74) were applied most recently during the Vietnam 

War. Beginning in the mid-1960s with the nationalization of 

copper mines in Chile, Congo (Kinshasa), and Zambia, the 

private copper mining industry (principally U.S. owned) lost 

a significant share of its net equity and influence in copper 

and its ability to adjust production at times of surplus. In 1978 

and 1983, which were periods of depressed copper prices, the 

U.S. industry unsuccessfully filed suit with the International 

Trade Commission to restrict imports of “low-priced” copper. Currency devaluations by copper-exporting counties had 

served to lower their costs and maintain production levels. 

In 1967, the Intergovernmental Council of Copper Exporting 

Countries (CIPEC) was formed by countries accounting for 

about 40 percent of global copper mine production. Its attempt 

to intervene in the depressed copper market in 1975 by limiting production of member countries to 90 percent of normal 

production and by reducing CIPEC-country copper exports 

by 15 percent was not fully observed and was unsuccessful in 

stimulating a price rise (Mikesell, 1979, p. 187–215).

Although the price of copper has been influenced by business cycles, government policy, and technological changes, 

production costs and the balance or imbalance between supply 

and demand have ultimately been the principal determinants. 

The above influences, combined with the large capital investment and long lead times required to develop new mines, 

have resulted in a highly cyclical copper industry. World mine 

production reached a peak in 1974 at the height of a major 

economic recession; this followed capacity growth stimulated by the high-demand Vietnam War years. The resulting 

oversupply kept prices depressed for 4 years. Strong growth in 

consumption in the latter part of the 1970s led to tight supplies, high prices, and expansions in global capacity. When a 

sharp economic recession began in 1981, world mine production and capacity were again reaching peak levels. The resulting oversupply depressed prices for 5 years and resulted in the 

initial shutdown of about one-third of U.S. mine production. 

The large surplus and low prices discouraged new production 

for 3 years and set the stage for the tight supplies and high 

prices that ensued from 1987 to 1990. Similarly, a recession in 

2001 led to a large inventory surplus and a sustained period of 

low prices.

World copper inventories began to rise in 1990 with 

the onset of a global recession and, except for a dip in 1992, 

continued to rise through most of 1993. Though relatively 

high by historical standards, copper prices declined as copper 

inventories rose. In 1992, a short-lived dip in inventories 

that was attributed to a bottleneck in smelter capacity caused 

prices to spike upward for several months before resuming 

their downward trend. Despite rising London Metal Exchange 

(LME) inventories, a second spike in prices took place in mid1993; a spot shortage of copper developed that was attributed 

to market control by several large market participants. Prices 

plummeted in September when the LME intervened to limit 
Copper (Cu) 47

price backwardation (forward prices selling at a discount to 

spot prices).

Prices rose sharply in 1994 following a strong growth 

in world demand, which had stagnated during the preceding 3 years, and the onset of a production deficit. The rapid 

growth in world demand, fueled by the United States and Asia, 

stimulated a surge in new capacity development, particularly 

in South America. Changing political/investment climates, 

including increased government stability and privatization 

efforts, made foreign investment more attractive to companies 

that sought to protect themselves from future downturns by 

investing in lower cost production. An anticipated surplus 

in production was delayed, in part, by higher-than-expected 

consumption and by production disruptions, including political 

strife in Africa, which reduced expected output. In June 1996, 

copper prices plummeted from the high level of the previous 

18 months, the producer price falling to $0.94 per pound, following revelations by Sumitomo that it had lost several billion 

dollars on unauthorized copper trades and speculation by 

industry that Sumitomo held large unreported copper inventories (Platt’s Metals Week, 1996). Following the sharp drop 

in prices, however, an increasingly tight copper supply caused 

prices to rise to $1.20 per pound. 

With the onset of the Asian economic crises in 1997, 

demand failed to keep pace with production increases, and a 

global copper surplus developed. Yearend 1998 inventories 

held in global metal exchange warehouses (COMEX, LME, 

and the Shanghai Futures Exchange) rose to 760,000 metric 

tons (t) from 457,000 t at yearend 1997. The constant dollar 

copper price in 1998 fell to the lowest level since the Great 

Depression of the 1930s. Prices continued their downward 

trend for the first half of 1999, and exchange warehouse stocks 

reached a new record high of almost 900,000 t. Prices trended 

upward in the second half of 1999 to about $0.80 per pound 

as stocks stabilized and North American and South American 

producers announced production cutbacks.

In 2000, strong consumption growth (led by Asia) and 

mine production cutbacks resulted in the global productionto-consumption balance shifting from a surplus to a deficit. 

Combined yearend inventories on the global exchanges fell 

by more than one-half to about 524,000 t, and the monthly 

average COMEX price ranged between $0.77 and $0.91 per 

pound. The deficit market, however, was short lived owing to 

the onset of a global recession in 2001. Demand for refined 

copper in 2001 declined for the first time in 10 years, inventories rose, and the COMEX price fell below $0.70 per pound of 

copper. Global exchange inventories continued to rise through 

April 2002, peaking at more than 1.5 million metric tons (Mt). 

By yearend, however, inventories began to fall owing to cutbacks in production and the emergence of China as the leading 

global consumer of refined copper, displacing the United 

States. Apparent consumption of copper in China rose to 2.8 

Mt in 2002 from only 1.5 Mt in 1999. Though trending downward through the first three quarters of 2003 to below 1 Mt, 

large overhanging exchange inventories kept prices relatively 

low, and the COMEX copper price averaged only about $0.77 

per pound for the first three quarters of 2003. 

In October 2003, in response to a continued slide in 

global exchange inventories and concerns over supply disruptions, prices began a steep climb, the COMEX price peaking 

at yearend at $1.04 per pound. This marked the beginning of 

an upward trend in copper prices to increasingly higher record 

levels that persisted until the onset of the global financial 

crisis during the fourth quarter of 2008. By yearend 2004, 

global exchange inventories had fallen to 124,000 t, and the 

COMEX copper price had risen to a then record-high monthly 

average of $1.43 per pound. Though volatile, copper prices on 

average continued to climb. In May 2006, the COMEX price 

reached a new record daily high of $4.08 per pound of copper, and in April 2008 reached a new record monthly average 

high of $3.94 per pound. According to data compiled by the 

International Copper Study Group (ICSG) (2010, p. 9), the 

balance between refined copper production and consumption 

showed an almost continuous production deficit and a cumulative production deficit (2003–07) of almost 1.4 Mt of refined 

copper. Though trending slightly upward from yearend 2004, 

global exchange inventories remained very low by historical 

standards.

Several factors contributed to the market imbalance and 

rise in prices. According to ICSG data (International Copper Study Group, 2010, p. 25), global consumption of refined 

copper rose by 16 percent (2.5 Mt) from 2003 to 2007, led by 

a 60-percent growth (1.9 Mt) in China’s apparent consumption of refined copper. Meanwhile, despite a 2.7-millionmetric-ton-per-year (Mt/yr) growth in global mine production 

capacity (International Copper Study Group, 2011b, p. 13), 

mine production rose by only 1.7 Mt. Factors that contributed 

to a lower mine capacity utilization rate (85.4 percent in 2007 

compared with 89.7 percent in 2003) included shortages of 

equipment, supplies, utilities, and labor that accompanied the 

coincident production growth and demand increases for copper and other mineral and agricultural commodities; technical problems associated with capacity expansion and startup 

of new operations; and labor and political unrest, at least in 

part attributed to higher copper prices. The above limitations 

reduced miners’ ability to produce additional copper at any 

price. Despite a significant increase in production costs, prices 

rose significantly above marginal production costs as increased 

investment interest in commodities spurred a global runup in 

prices across mineral commodities. 

Global copper consumption and prices continued their 

upward trend through the first 9 months of 2008. In October, 

however, with the onset of the global financial crisis, prices 

began a sharp downward spiral that did not come to a halt until 

December 24, when the COMEX price fell to $1.25 per pound 

of copper, the lowest level since September 2004. Despite a 

year-on-year growth for the first 8 months of 2008, global consumption of copper for the full-year 2008 was down slightly 

from that of the previous year.
48 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

Copper prices trended sharply upward in 2009 and 2010, 

the COMEX price rebounding to an average monthly price of 

$3.19 per pound in December 2009, and a new record-high 

daily price and monthly average price of $4.27 and $4.17 

per pound, respectively, in December 2010. Though global 

exchange inventories rose to almost 790,000 t at yearend 

2009, cutbacks in production in response to the economic 

crises and a 38-percent growth (2008–09) in China’s apparent 

consumption spurred concerns over future supply adequacy 

and renewed speculative interest (International Copper Study 

Group, 2011a, p. 19). Global recovery outside of China in 

2010, which helped sustain a renewed growth in global copper 

consumption and a continuing downward trend in mine capacity utilization, led to a decline in global exchange inventories, 

increased speculative interest, and the runup in prices. 

References Cited

International Copper Study Group, 2010, ICSG 2010 statistical yearbook: Lisbon, Portugal, International Copper Study 

Group, July, 79 p.

International Copper Study Group, 2011a, Copper bulletin: 

Lisbon, Portugal, International Copper Study Group, v. 18, 

no. 3, March, 54 p.

International Copper Study Group, 2011b, Directory of copper 

mines and plants—2009 to 2014: Lisbon, Portugal, International Copper Study Group, March, 118 p. 

Jolly, J.L., 1991, Copper, in Metal prices in the United States 

through 1991: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 45–52.

Mikesell, R.F., 1979, The world copper industry: Baltimore, 

Johns Hopkins University Press, 393 p.

Platt’s Metals Week, 1996, Sumitomo copper position raises 

market anxiety: Platt’s Metals Week, v. 67, no. 25, June 7, 

p. 1.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Cents per pound

Year

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION

Figure 1. Annual average U.S. producer copper prices.
Copper (Cu) 49

Significant events affecting copper prices since 1970

1970–73 Continued high wartime demand, though export controls and set-asides instituted to meet defense needs were 

eased; two-tier pricing generates Government concern; price controls limit price rise; nationalization of U.S.-

owned Chilean properties; the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries oil embargo begins

1974 End of price controls and strong demand caused first-half price rise before second-half economic reversal; last 

wartime-related stockpile release (229,000 metric tons); fixed exchange rates abandoned

1975–77 Demand dropped precipitously owing to recession; copper inventories rose to record levels; high price volatility

1978–80 Record copper consumption and lower stock levels; rising precious metals prices; 5-month labor strike; beginning 

of Commodity Exchange, Inc. (COMEX)-based pricing

1981 Large growth in domestic and world production; rising inventories

1982–84 Recession; inventory buildup; U.S. production sharply curtailed; expansion of COMEX-based pricing

1985–6 Drawdown of high copper inventories; cutback in capacity at U.S. mines; cost cutting and efficiency moves

1987–89 Historically low inventories; growing world consumption; prices peaked at $1.68 in December 1988

1990–92 Global supply constraints balanced recession; dissolution of the Soviet Union and political turmoil in Africa; 

precarious supply/demand balance led to price volatility

1993 Stagnant world demand and rising inventories; London Metal Exchange (LME) intervention in market caused 

sharp price drop in September

1994–95 Strong global demand growth, sharp inventory decline, highest annual price to date; LME opened U.S. warehouses

1996 Sumitomo Corp. revealed huge trading losses, and prices plummeted at midyear despite global inventory decline

1997–98 Asian economic crises and rapid expansion of global capacity combined to generate large global surplus

1999–2000 Asian demand growth and production cutbacks reduced oversupply and encouraged higher prices

2001–02 Global recession reduced demand and led to large inventory buildup; China displaced the United States as leading 

world consumer of refined copper

2004–07 Explosive growth in China’s demand, production disruptions, and delays in new capacity constrained supply; 

global exchange inventories fell to minimal levels and copper prices rose to new record-high levels, buoyed by 

investment interest

2008 Onset of global economic crisis in fourth quarter caused prices to plummet and inventories to rise

2009–10 Copper prices rebounded owing to extraordinary growth in China’s apparent consumption, continued supply constraints, and renewed interest in commodity investment; China accounted for 38 percent to 39 percent of world 

demand, up from 12 percent in 2000
50 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

Table 1. Annual average U.S. producer copper price.

[Values in cents per pound]

Year Price

1850 22.00

1851 17.00

1852 22.00

1853 22.00

1854 22.00

1855 27.00

1856 27.00

1857 25.00

1858 23.00

1859 22.00

1860 23.00

1861 22.00

1862 22.00

1863 34.00

1864 47.00

1865 39.20

1866 34.20

1867 25.40

1868 23.00

1869 24.20

1870 21.20

1871 24.10

1872 35.60

1873 28.00

1874 22.00

1875 22.70

1876 21.00

1877 19.00

1878 16.60

1879 18.60

1880 21.40

1881 19.20

1882 19.10

1883 16.50

1884 13.00

1885 10.80

1886 11.10

1887 13.80

1888 16.80

1889 13.50

1890 15.60

Year Price

1891 12.80

1892 11.60

1893 10.80

1894 9.50

1895 10.70

1896 10.80

1897 11.29

1898 12.03

1899 16.70

1900 16.19

1901 16.10

1902 11.63

1903 13.20

1904 12.80

1905 15.60

1906 19.30

1907 20.00

1908 13.20

1909 13.11

1910 12.88

1911 12.55

1912 16.48

1913 15.52

1914 13.31

1915 17.47

1916 28.46

1917 29.19

1918 24.68

1919 18.19

1920 17.50

1921 12.65

1922 13.56

1923 14.75

1924 13.28

1925 14.30

1926 14.05

1927 13.05

1928 14.81

1929 18.35

1930 13.23

1931 8.37

Year Price

1932 5.79

1933 7.28

1934 8.66

1935 8.88

1936 9.71

1937 13.39

1938 10.22

1939 11.20

1940 11.53

1941 12.00

1942 12.00

1943 12.00

1944 12.00

1945 12.00

1946 14.04

1947 21.27

1948 22.32

1949 19.50

1950 21.58

1951 24.50

1952 24.50

1953 29.05

1954 29.94

1955 37.51

1956 42.00

1957 30.17

1958 26.31

1959 30.99

1960 32.34

1961 30.32

1962 31.00

1963 31.00

1964 32.35

1965 35.36

1966 36.00

1967 38.10

1968 41.17

1969 47.43

1970 58.07

1971 52.09

1972 51.44

Year Price

1973 59.49

1974 77.27

1975 64.16

1976 69.59

1977 66.77

1978 65.81

1979 92.19

1980 101.31

1981 84.21

1982 72.80

1983 76.53

1984 66.85

1985 66.97

1986 66.05

1987 82.50

1988 120.51

1989 130.95

1990 123.16

1991 109.33

1992 107.42

1993 91.56

1994 111.05

1995 138.33

1996 109.04

1997 106.92

1998 78.64

1999 75.91

2000 88.16

2001 76.85

2002 75.80

2003 85.01

2004 134.20

2005 173.57

2006 314.75

2007 328.00

2008 319.16

2009 241.38

2010 348.34
Copper (Cu) 51

Notes:

1850–96, New York price for Lake copper (99.9-percent-pure copper), in Loughlin, G.F., Prefatory note on the report on gold, silver, copper, lead, and zinc, 

Mineral Resources of the United States 1922, Part I, U.S. Geological Survey, 1925, p. 127a.

1897–98, New York price for Lake copper (99.9-percent-pure copper), in Engineering and Mining Journal.

1899–1908, Electrolytic (99.9-percent-pure copper) refinery price in New York, in Engineering and Mining Journal.

1909–22, Electrolytic (99.9-percent-pure copper) domestic f.o.b. refinery, in American Metal Market.

1923–72, Electrolytic (99.9-percent-pure copper) domestic delivered to Connecticut price, in American Metal Market.

1973–77, U.S. producer electrolytic (99.9-percent-pure copper) wirebar, in Metals Week.

1978–92, U.S. producer cathode (99.99-percent-pure copper), in Metals Week.

1993–2010, U.S. producer cathode (99.99-percent-pure copper), in Platts (Platt’s) Metals Week.
52 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

Gallium (Ga)

by Brian W. Jaskula 

In 1875, French chemist Lecoq de Boisbaudran isolated 

an element and named it gallium, a derivative of Gallia, the 

Latin name for France. Gallium was initially produced in the 

United States in 1915 from residues obtained in the redistillation of spelter in the extraction of zinc from zinc concentrates 

(Petkof, 1985).

Prices shown in the graph are for gallium of 

99.9999-percent purity (fig. 1; table 1). This grade has been 

used since the 1960s in gallium-arsenide (GaAs)-based optoelectronic devices, including light-emitting diodes (LEDs), 

laser diodes, and solar cells. From 1936 to 1960, prices for 

99.9-percent-pure gallium were quoted at $3,000 per kilogram; this grade of metal, however, had very limited uses in 

commercial applications. Most of its consumption was for 

experimental purposes; small quantities were used in hightemperature thermometers and low-melting-point alloys, and 

as a specialized mirror coating. Consequently, there was little 

relationship between prices prior to 1960 and those after that 

time, when commercial applications were developed.

Gallium is recovered primarily as a byproduct from the 

refining of bauxite to alumina. As a byproduct metal, price 

trends for gallium are not significantly influenced by macroeconomic factors; rather, they are driven by gallium supply 

and demand relationships. The large drop in prices in the early 

1960s was principally because of technologic improvements in 

gallium recovery and purification processes. Commercial gallium extraction techniques were introduced in the late 1950s 

(Beja, 1951; de la Breteque, 1957). As these processes were 

improved, the availability of gallium became greater, but the 

demand did not increase.

Introduction of the GaAs-based LED changed the consumption pattern of gallium from that of a laboratory curiosity 

to a metal with some consumer applications. LEDs, used in 

consumer applications such as displays in digital watches 

and handheld calculators, were responsible for large annual 

increases in demand from 1966 to 1973. To capture the LED 

market, gallium prices continued to drop throughout this 

period.

Research and development of GaAs’s semiconducting 

properties, which were begun in the mid-1960s, has continued as potential applications for the material continue to be 

evaluated (Brodsky, 1990). GaAs-based integrated circuits 

have been developed and have made inroads into low-volume 

applications, such as sophisticated military warfare systems 

and supercomputers. Because these are low-volume applications and the quantity of gallium used per unit produced is 

small, gallium’s raw material cost is not a significant factor 

in the item’s final cost. The demand for gallium, therefore, 

has not increased to a level that cannot be met by existing 

supplies, and there has been no incentive to increase gallium’s 

price. Although gallium prices have decreased as its uses have 

grown, it is still used in small quantities compared with many 

other metals and only in specialized applications where its 

properties are crucial.

By 2010, GaAs demand was driven mainly by cellular 

handsets and other high-speed wireless applications, and 

increasingly by feature-rich, application-intensive, third- and 

fourth-generation “smartphones,” which employ considerably higher GaAs content than standard cellular handsets. 

The rapidly growing high-brightness LED industry was also a 

significant driver for GaAs- and GaN (gallium nitride)-based 

technologies. The backlighting of computer notebook screens, 

flat-screen computer monitors, and flat-screen televisions was 

the driving force for high-brightness LED consumption in 

2010. 

Most gallium prices are directly negotiated between the 

producer and consumer, with larger volume consumers able to 

negotiate lower prices. Producer-quoted prices, therefore, may 

not represent actual selling prices; in most cases, they provide 

an indication of the trend of gallium prices. Producer-quoted 

gallium prices have not been published since 2001. Prices 

since 2002 are based on the average value of U.S. gallium 

imports as provided by the U.S. Census Bureau.

References Cited

Beja, Maurice, 1951, Method of extracting gallium oxide from 

aluminous substances: U.S. Patent 2,574,008, 5 p.

Brodsky, M.H., 1990, Progress in gallium arsenide semiconductors: Scientific American, v. 262, no. 2, February, 

p. 68–75.

de la Breteque, Pierre, 1957, Method of recovering gallium 

from an alkali aluminate lye: U.S. Patent 2,793,179, 6 p.

Petkof, Benjamin, 1985, Gallium, in Mineral facts and problems 1985: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 291–296.
Gallium (Ga) 53

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Dollars per kilogram

Year

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION

Figure 1. Annual average gallium prices.

Significant events affecting gallium prices since 1970

1970–73 U.S. gallium demand increased significantly because of widespread use of light-emitting diodes (LEDs)

2009–10 U.S. gallium demand increased significantly owing to rapid growth of feature-rich, gallium arsenide (GaAs)-

intensive “smartphones,” LED-backlit computer notebook screens, flat-screen computer monitors, and flatscreen televisions
54 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

Table 1. Annual average gallium price.

[Values in dollars per kilogram]

Year Price

1959 3,000

1960 2,600

1961 2,250

1962 1,750

1963 1,200

1964 1,200

1965 1,200

1966 1,200

1967 1,200

1968 1,200

1969 850

1970 850

1971 850

Year Price

1972 750

1973 750

1974 775

1975 775

1976 775

1977 550

1978 550

1979 510

1980 630

1981 630

1982 470

1983 470

1984 445

Year Price

1985 475

1986 475

1987 475

1988 475

1989 475

1990 475

1991 475

1992 475

1993 330

1994 325

1995 390

1996 390

1997 550

Year Price

1998 550

1999 595

2000 595

2001 595

2002 530

2003 411

2004 550

2005 538

2006 443

2007 530

2008 579

2009 449

2010 600

Notes:

1959–2001, 99.9999-percent-pure metal in American Metal Market.

2002–10, average value of U.S. imports for consumption.
Germanium (Ge) 55

Germanium (Ge)

by David E. Guberman 

Germanium was discovered by Clemens Winkler of 

Germany in 1886, although its existence had been predicted 

by D.I. Mendeleev in his periodic table of elements in 1869. 

Germanium is a hard, grayish-white element; has a metallic 

luster; has the same crystal structure as diamond; and is brittle, 

like glass. It is a semiconductor, with electrical properties 

between those of a metal and an insulator. Germanium and 

its compounds remained almost entirely items of interest for 

research until World War II, although the use of germanium 

dioxide in treating anemia was reported in 1922 (Gregory, 

1942).

With the invention and development of the crystal diode 

and the transistor in the 1940s, germanium became an important industrial material (Bardeen and Brattain, 1948). Prior to 

1945, the amount of germanium produced was very small, a 

few hundred pounds per year. From 1945 to 1949, the demand 

for electronic uses resulted in substantial growth of the germanium industry and higher prices for the metal.

After 1953, germanium prices started to decline progressively and, by 1966, bottomed out at $175 per kilogram 

of metal, the lowest price ever quoted (table 1). This price 

prevailed for the next 2 years, rose in 1969, and rose again 

in 1970 because of inflationary trends in the market. Prices 

remained constant at $293 per kilogram from 1971 through 

1976 (fig. 1).

The invention and development of the germanium transistor opened the door for countless applications of solid-state 

electronics. From 1950 through the early 1970s, this area 

provided an excellent market for germanium. In the 1970s, 

demand for germanium in transistors, diodes, and rectifiers 

declined, owing mainly to the increasing use of electronicgrade silicon as a replacement. The reduced demand for 

germanium in the electronics field was offset, however, by 

dramatic increases in demand in fiber-optic communication 

networks (Roskill’s Letters From Japan, 1997), in infrared 

night vision systems (Metal Bulletin, 1975), and as a polymerization catalyst (Metal Bulletin, 1995). These end uses 

represented 77 percent of worldwide germanium consumption 

for 1998.

Increased consumption and tight supply caused dramatic 

increases in both domestic and foreign prices for germanium 

metal beginning in 1979. By December 1981, the domestic 

germanium metal quoted price was set at $1,060 per kilogram 

and remained there for 13 years. During most of this period, 

the free market price remained lower than the published producer price for germanium metal owing to the development of 

a worldwide excess of supply relative to demand.

Germanium was designated a strategic and critical material and was included in the National Defense Stockpile (NDS) 

in 1984 with an initial goal of 30,000 kilograms of germanium metal. In 1987, a new NDS goal of 146,000 kilograms 

was established on the basis of U.S. Department of Defense 

estimates for actual emergency conditions of mobilization. In 

1991, the goal was adjusted downwards to 68,000 kilograms. 

In 1995, the Defense Logistics Agency, which managed the 

NDS, planned to sell germanium from the stockpile at the rate 

of 4,000 kilograms per year through 2005. The release rate 

was increased to 6,000 kilograms per year in 1997, the first 

year of actual sales, and to 8,000 kilograms per year in 1998 

(U.S. Department of Defense, 1998). 

Starting in 1995, the producer price rose again and 

fluctuated around $1,500 per kilogram. It reached $2,000 per 

kilogram in 1996. The higher price levels were because of 

increased demand and shortages in production. The gradual 

releases of germanium from the United States, Russian, and 

Ukrainian stockpiles concurrent with the lowering of world 

military tensions tended to stabilize prices.

In 1998, germanium prices increased despite an oversupply that resulted from slight decreases in world demand for 

optical fibers and polyethylene terephthalate, and an increase 

in total supply owing to greater amounts of recycling and 

continued releases of germanium from national stockpiles. 

This increase in price was probably due to anticipated demand 

in the satellite communications sector, and, when this increase 

in demand did not take place in 1999, germanium prices began 

to fall. This same mechanism prevailed in 2000. Demand in 

satellite applications did not increase, and prices continued to 

fall. Germanium prices continued to decline until 2004.

The use of germanium in infrared equipment and solar 

cells for satellites by military and civilian security forces 

increased after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, 

and with United States military operations in Afghanistan 

and Iraq. Demand for germanium and prices increased in late 

2006–07 owing to increased use in the construction of fiberoptic networks in many regions of the world. The fiber-tothe-home market began to gain momentum during this time 

period. Germanium also began to be used in greater quantities for terrestrial-based solar cells and light-emitting diodes. 

China removed toll trading tax benefits for germanium and 

most other minor metals in April 2007, effectively decreasing 

the supply of germanium to the world market and increasing 

prices (Metal Bulletin, 2007).

A downturn in the global economy began during the 

second half of 2008 and continued in 2009. The market price 

of germanium declined throughout 2009 owing to weakened 
56 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

global demand. Free market prices for germanium dioxide 

in 2009, published by Metal-Pages, began the year at about 

$920 per kilogram and declined by 37 percent to $580 per 

kilogram by yearend. The free market prices for germanium 

metal began the year at $1,425 per kilogram and declined by 

34 percent to $940 per kilogram by yearend 2009. The market 

prices of germanium dioxide and metal were relatively stable 

during the first three quarters of 2010 and increased in the 

last quarter. Germanium prices have proven to be relatively 

volatile at times owing to limited supply sources and the lack 

of substitutability in many applications. It should be noted 

that price changes can potentially be caused by changes in the 

source of price quotations. 

References Cited

Bardeen, John, and Brattain, W.H., 1948, The transistor—

A semiconductor triode: Physics Review, v. 74, Series 2, 

July 15, p. 230–231.

Gregory, T.C., 1942, Germanium, in The condensed chemical 

dictionary: New York, Reinhold, p. 320.

Metal Bulletin, 1975, Minor, precious metals—Germanium: 

Metal Bulletin, no. 5971, March 4, p. 21.

Metal Bulletin, 1995, Germanium dioxide prices continue to 

firm: Metal Bulletin, no. 7982, May 25, p. 7.

Metal Bulletin, 2007, China to cancel minor toll trading 

benefits: Metal Bulletin, no. 8991, April 16, p. 12.

Roskill’s Letters From Japan, 1997, Germanium—Growth in 

demand led by the use of high-purity germanium tetrachloride in optical fibres: Roskill’s Letters From Japan, no. 256, 

August, p. 2–6.

U.S. Department of Defense, 1998, Strategic and critical materials report to the Congress: U.S. Department of 

Defense, January 13, 43 p.

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Dollars per kilogram

Year

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION

Figure 1. Annual average germanium price.
Germanium (Ge) 57

Significant events affecting germanium prices since 1970

1979–82 Increased demand, tight supply

1984 National Defense Stockpile (NDS) authorization, goal 30,000 kilograms

1987 New authorized NDS goal of 146,000 kilograms

1991 NDS goal lowered to 68,000 kilograms

1996 Increased demand, production shortages

1997 NDS stockpile sales began

2001 Events on September 11, 2001, increased military demand for infrared devices

2006–07 Increased global demand, relatively tight supply

2008–10 Global economic crisis, prices declined

Table 1. Annual average germanium price.

[Values in dollars per kilogram]

Year Price

1945 441

1946 397

1947 397

1948 507

1949 727

1950 397

1951 397

1952 484

1953 720

1954 650

1955 650

1956 535

1957 445

1958 445

1959 350

1960 300

1961 300

Year Price

1962 300

1963 270

1964 270

1965 270

1966 175

1967 175

1968 175

1969 185

1970 280

1971 293

1972 293

1973 293

1974 293

1975 293

1976 293

1977 314

1978 319

Year Price

1979 398

1980 653

1981 911

1982 1,060

1983 1,060

1984 1,060

1985 1,060

1986 1,060

1987 1,060

1988 1,060

1989 1,060

1990 1,060

1991 1,060

1992 1,060

1993 1,060

1994 1,060

1995 1,375

Year Price

1996 2,000

1997 1,475

1998 1,700

1999 1,400

2000 1,250

2001 890

2002 620

2003 380

2004 600

2005 660

2006 950

2007 1,240

2008 1,490

2009 940

2010 1,200

Notes:

1945–57, Domestic price for 99.9-percent-pure germanium, in Engineering and Mining Journal, Metal and Mineral Markets.

1957–66, Domestic price for zone-refined germanium (99.9999-percent pure), in Engineering and Mining Journal, Metal and Mineral Markets.

1967–81, Domestic price for zone-refined germanium (99.9999-percent pure), in Metals Week.

1982–93, U.S. producer price for zone-refined germanium (99.9999-percent pure), in Metals Week.

1993–94, U.S. producer price for zone-refined germanium (99.9999-percent pure), in Platt’s Metals Week.

1995–2010, U.S. producer price quotes for zone-refined germanium (99.9999-percent pure), in Metal Bulletin.
58 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

Gold (Au)

by Micheal W. George

Gold was highly regarded by ancient civilizations that 

possessed it because of its scarcity, durability, and malleability. 

In ancient times, gold was used for jewelry, craft, or ceremonial purposes and not for its monetary value. Its characteristic 

yellow color was reminiscent of the sun, which was worshiped 

as a deity. Because of its high specific gravity, it was first 

recovered from streambed gravels as nuggets or flakes, where 

it occurred in metallic form, and thus required no complicated 

metallurgical extraction from ores; it was essentially imperishable and was easily worked.

These beautiful and seemingly indestructible nuggets 

were prized possessions that could be fashioned into bars of 

different set weights, and into ornaments and items of adornment that also served as portable wealth. At first crude, but 

increasingly refined and specialized over the years, these 

manufactured forms eventually diverged, at least partly, into 

jewelry and money. For more than five millennia, until well 

into the 20th century, they were the only quantitatively important uses of gold.

During that time, there remained, and in some developing 

countries remains today, a functional overlap between jewelry 

and money; that is, items of gold jewelry have been used as 

money, and gold money has been made into items of jewelry. 

Crude forms of jewelry/money appear to have originated soon 

after the founding of the first cities. The invention of money 

is commonly ascribed to the Mesopotamians or, more specifically, the Sumerians, who lived in what is now southern Iraq. 

The art of working gold and silver into jewelry and (or) money 

seems to have arisen in Crete, Egypt, and Sumer at roughly the 

same time—probably around 3000 B.C. From the beginning, 

the universal perception of gold as a store of wealth has been 

implicit in its use as money and jewelry (Green, 2007).

Increases in gold price have had a good basis in history. 

From 1344 to 1717, the price for gold almost quadrupled, 

reaching the equivalent of $20.67 per troy ounce. That price 

was maintained for more than 200 years until the enactment of 

the Gold Reserve Act, which increased the price of gold to $35 

per troy ounce, on January 30, 1934. Pressure for still another 

increase in price gathered momentum less than 15 years later. 

Prices as high as $105 per troy ounce had been proposed, and 

world trade brought prices up to $70 per troy ounce (Colorado 

School of Mines, 1959).

In November 1961, the London gold pool, in which 

central banks of the United States and seven other nations 

agreed to buy and sell gold to support the $35-per-troy-ounce 

price, was established (Ryan and McBreen, 1962, p. 607). On 

March 17, 1968, the governors of the member central banks 

announced that they would no longer buy and sell gold in 

the private market but would sell gold to each other for $35 

per troy ounce. Thus, a two-tier market was established—an 

official market and a private market—in which the price was 

determined by supply and demand (Ryan, 1969, p. 535).

Following the establishment of the two-tier price system, 

a fixed price of $35 per troy ounce for official monetary transactions and a floating market price for private transactions, the 

U.S. Government asked Engelhard Minerals and Chemicals 

Corp. (known today as Engelhard), to quote a daily price. 

Engelhard initiated a buying quotation—the lowest price at 

which it could obtain sufficient gold of 99.95 percent purity 

to meet its requirements. A selling quotation $0.60 above the 

buying price, later reduced to $0.40, was also established 

(Ryan, 1969, p. 535). Thus, the basis for the average domestic market price for gold shown in the table was established 

(fig. 1; table 1).

On August 15, 1971, the President announced the 

suspension of convertibility of dollars into gold. Following 

provisions of Public Law 92–268, the Par Value Modification 

Act, enacted March 31, 1972, the official price of gold was 

increased to $38 per troy ounce on May 8, 1972 (West, 1975, 

p. 557).

Following amendments to the Par Value Modification 

Act contained in Public Law 93–110, enacted on September 

21, 1973, the dollar’s par value was devalued by 10 percent, 

to 0.829848 Special Drawing Rights [a unit of account in the 

International Monetary Fund (IMF)]. This fixed the official 

price of gold at $42.22 per troy ounce effective at 12:01 a.m., 

October 18, 1973. That price remains unchanged (West, 1975, 

p. 560).

Gold occupies a unique position among the world’s 

commodities; it is an internationally traded commodity and 

a long-established, universally acceptable storehouse of 

value, considered by many people worldwide to be superior 

to fiat paper currencies with fleeting longevity or fluctuating 

unpredictable value. It has been said many times that gold 

is “forever;” its high intrinsic and monetary value usually 

dictates that, in time, most of it will be recycled to serve again. 

Because of its historically high value, much of the gold mined 

throughout history is still in circulation in one form or another 

(Lucas, 1993, p. 505).

As a consequence of the dual roles played by gold, as 

commodity and as money, its price cannot be viewed as one 

would view the price of other goods or services in a free market. Gold also cannot be viewed strictly from the standpoint 

of the U.S. market alone because international political and 
Gold (Au) 59

economic events that may influence the market for gold as a 

commodity may be outweighed by developments perceived to 

favor gold as a medium of exchange. 

During 1969 and 1970, the United States experienced a 

mild recession, while the Republic of South Africa was permitted to sell gold to the IMF at $35 per troy ounce or less to 

meet its foreign exchange needs (Hoyt, 1971, p. 521).

By December 1971, the U.S. dollar had been devalued 

by 7.9 percent per exchange agreements reached during the 

Smithsonian Accords in Washington, D.C. Affected by previous year’s devaluation, the official U.S. gold price was raised 

to $38 per troy ounce on May 8, 1972; speculative buying 

was encouraged by monetary policy changes made by the 

European Economic Community and by restricted supplies of 

newly mined gold (West, 1974, p. 567).

In 1973, the gold market was influenced by a weakening and devaluation of the U.S. dollar, lowered confidence in 

currency values, higher inflation rates, unsettled world trade, 

and, for the third consecutive year, lower mine production. 

The official U.S. gold price was increased to $42.22 per troy 

ounce on September 21. An embargo was begun on petroleum shipments to the United States by the Organization of 

Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in mid-October. The 

two-tier gold price system, begun in 1968, was terminated on 

November 13, 1973 (West, 1975, p. 557). 

The OPEC embargo contributed to rising oil prices, 

worldwide inflation, and general economic uncertainty in 

1974. Following provisions of Public Law 93–373, enacted 

August 14, 1974, the President was given the authority to 

repeal the prohibition on the holding of gold by private 

citizens, and effective December 31, 1974, the prohibition 

was repealed and gold prices rose on speculation. The gold 

price trend was reversed in December by the U.S. Treasury’s 

announcement that it would offer 62,200 kilograms (kg) 

(2 million troy ounces) of Treasury gold for public sale beginning on January 6, 1975. Investor and speculator interest was 

diminished by the announcement by the IMF that it would 

sell 778,000 kg (25 million troy ounces) of gold on the open 

market beginning in 1976. The Treasury, however, was able to 

sell 38,900 kg (1.25 million troy ounces) from its gold stock 

during 1975 (West, 1977, p. 669).

Monthly IMF auctions were begun in midyear 1976 to 

provide capital for low-interest loans to developing countries. The IMF planned to sell a total of one-sixth of its gold 

stocks, or 778,000 kg (25 million troy ounces), during a 5-year 

period, and planned to restore an equal portion to member 

countries. In addition, a reduced inflation outlook drove prices 

down until October, when the low gold price and renewed 

anxiety about the economy served to reverse price trends. The 

Treasury gold stock was down at yearend owing to its use in 

Bicentennial medals, which were made by the Bureau of the 

Mint (West and Butterman, 1978, p. 591).

The world economy was stagnant in 1977. Limited success in controlling inflation led to higher gold prices, which 

benefitted the IMF auctions that continued throughout the 

year. There was a hiatus in Treasury sales (Butterman, 1980, 

p. 428).

IMF auctions continued during 1978, and the Treasury 

resumed gold stock selling (Butterman, 1980, p. 428). Middle 

East oil-producing countries and investors began purchasing 

gold with their eroding dollar assets.

Economic conditions worsened during the next 3 years. 

Political events in Iran, Afghanistan, and elsewhere propelled 

the price of gold to a high of $850 per troy ounce by January 

21, 1980. The IMF completed its 5-year auction program in 

May 1980. The Treasury sold no more gold in 1980 or 1981 

(Lucas, 1981, p. 347). After the U.S. hostages were released 

by Iran on January 20, 1981, political tension was lessened, 

which led to less hoarding and reduced gold prices. The 

Japanese began to invest in the gold market.

Although the U.S. strict monetary policy contributed to 

a recession and high interest rates in 1982, the advent of computer trading contributed to short-term volatility in the gold 

price. Lingering effects of the world economic recession on 

the mineral industry led to profit taking during the first part of 

1983. Speculative gold trading to midyear strengthened price 

but was followed by profit taking (Lucas, 1984, p. 385). Oil 

prices weakened, while gold supplies from mines and official 

sources increased.

In 1984, the price declined owing to increasing strength 

of the U.S. dollar and investor selling. Weakened price 

and a favorable market outlook contributed to increases in 

demand for gold-bearing fabricated products. The U.S. dollar 

weakened in the first quarter of 1985 against major European 

currencies and the Japanese yen. It continued weakening 

in 1986, which encouraged gold investment (Lucas, 1988, 

p. 441) as oil prices declined sharply.

By 1987, there was a sharp reversal in world stock 

markets with a continued weakness of the U.S. dollar combined with growing concern regarding U.S. budget and trade 

deficits and increasing U.S. private and Third World debt. 

Stability of the international monetary arrangements was 

questioned. Volatile investment markets generated increased 

gold-trading activity (Lucas, 1988, p. 441). During 1988, gold 

prices declined in response to a variety of factors, such as the 

withdrawal of the Soviet troops from Afghanistan, which gave 

investors the perception that political stability was at hand; 

weakening oil prices combined with an increase in interest 

rates by the U.S. Federal Reserve led to reduced inflationary expectations, increasing U.S. dollar strength, as well as 

improving U.S. trade results (Lucas, 1989, p. 64–65). 

Official sector gold sales increased in 1989 as central 

banks adopted a more aggressive policy of gold management. 

In addition, a change of attitude developed toward gold, aided 

by concerns about the security of bonds and other financial 

assets and a setback in the U.S. stock markets in mid-October 

(Gold Fields Mineral Services Limited, 1990, p. 8).

The rise in Japanese interest rates in 1990 provided 

alternate investment havens. The former Soviet Union was 

reported to have sold significant amounts of gold for hard 
60 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

currency. The Chinese sold out of equity swap agreements that 

were negotiated in mid-1989. The gold price drifted down as a 

result of the Persian Gulf War and the recession (Gold Fields 

Mineral Services Limited, 1991, p. 8–9).

The brief multination conflict that started in 1991 in the 

Persian Gulf did little to affect the perception of moderating 

political stability generally or to influence the price of gold for 

any sustained period of time. The collapse and restructuring of 

the Soviet Union, however, did much to reduce investor interest in gold (Gold Fields Mineral Services Limited, 1992, p. 5). 

The end of the 1992 bear market encouraged a return of 

European and U.S. investor confidence. In 1993, the high gold 

price, which particularly affected the local currencies of the 

Middle East and Asia, resulted in reduced hoarding of coins 

and large amounts of gold scrap being introduced into the 

market (Roskill Information Services Ltd., 1995, p. i). 

During 1994, the gold market held onto the gains 

achieved during the previous year, but the U.S. dollar price 

lacked direction and volatility. Hoarding of gold continued to be reduced as investors deserted the market (Roskill 

Information Services Ltd., 1995, p. i).

The average dollar price of gold remained almost 

unchanged between 1994 and 1996. Late in the fourth quarter 

of 1996, the Dutch Government provided a key catalyst by 

selling one-third of its reserves (Gold Fields Mineral Services 

Limited, 1997, p. 5). Fears that other central banks might sell 

their gold reserves followed (CRU International Ltd., 1996, 

p. 19).

During 1997 through 2001, central banks of several 

countries sold large shares of gold holdings to meet commoncurrency criteria for the European Union or to demonetize. 

Bank failures or insolvencies in East and Southeast Asian 

countries created uncertainty in investment circles. The price 

of gold returned to the low levels of 1979 (Gold Fields Mineral Services Limited, 1998, p. 5).

The gold price started to increase in late 2001 after the 

terrorist attacks on September 11, and continued to climb into 

2010. The annual average price of gold in 2001, the lowest 

level since 1978, was $272.22 per troy ounce. After 9 continuous years of near-double-digit-percentage yearly increases, the 

average annual price in 2010 was $1,227.51 per troy ounce 

or 351 percent greater than the 2001 price. The driving force 

behind the price surge has been the increased investments, 

lack of sales from central banks, producer dehedging, and 

decreased mine production. Many investors turned to gold as 

a safe haven investment because of the multiple wars, global 

economic downturns, and devaluation of the U.S. dollar. 

In 2003, a gold exchange traded fund (ETF) first 

appeared. Gold ETFs have gained popularity with many 

investors. According to some industry analysts, investing in 

gold in the traditional manner is not as accessible and carries 

higher costs owing to insurance, storage, and higher markups. 

The claimed advantage of the ETF is that the investor can 

purchase gold ETF shares through a stockbroker without being 

concerned about these problems, and the ETFs are treated by 

regulators as securities. Each share represents one-tenth of 

an ounce of allocated gold. With the advancement of ETFs, 

investors had easier access to gold as an investment. By the 

end of 2010, there were 23 ETFs and 2 physically backed 

Canadian funds, which had physical gold holdings of 2,190 

metric tons (CPM Group, 2011, p. 41–46).

References Cited

Butterman, W.C., 1980, Gold, in Metals and minerals: U.S. 

Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook 1977, v. I, p. 427–445.

Colorado School of Mines, 1959, The price for gold: Colorado 

School of Mines Mineral Industries Bulletin, v. 2, no. 6, 

November, p. 10.

CPM Group, 2011, The CPM Group gold yearbook 2011: New 

York, CPM Group, 245 p.

CRU International Ltd., 1996, Gold: CRU International Ltd. 

Quarterly Market Service, November, 60 p.

Gold Fields Mineral Services Limited, 1990, Gold 1990: 

[London], Gold Fields Mineral Services Limited, 64 p. 

Gold Fields Mineral Services Limited, 1991, Gold 1991: 

[London], Gold Fields Mineral Services Limited, 64 p.

Gold Fields Mineral Services Limited, 1992, Gold 1992: 

[London], Gold Fields Mineral Services Limited, 64 p. 

Gold Fields Mineral Services Limited, 1997, Gold 1997: 

[London], Gold Fields Mineral Services Limited, 71 p. 

Gold Fields Mineral Services Limited, 1998, Gold 1998: 

[London], Gold Fields Mineral Services Limited, 63 p. 

Green, Timothy, 2007, The ages of gold: [London], Gold 

Fields Mineral Services Limited, 446 p.

Hoyt, C.D., 1971, Gold, in Metals, minerals, and fuels: U.S. 

Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook 1969, v. I, p. 521–538.

Lucas, J.M., 1981, Gold, in Metals and minerals: U.S. Bureau 

of Mines Minerals Yearbook 1980, v. I, p. 347–373.

Lucas, J.M., 1984, Gold, in Metals and minerals: U.S. Bureau 

of Mines Minerals Yearbook 1983, v. I, p. 385–411.

Lucas, J.M., 1988, Gold, in Metals and minerals: U.S. Bureau 

of Mines Minerals Yearbook 1986, v. I, p. 421–458.

Lucas, J.M., 1989, Gold: U.S. Bureau of Mines Mineral 

Commodity Summaries 1989, p. 64–65.

Lucas, J.M., 1993, Gold, in Metals and minerals: U.S. Bureau 

of Mines Minerals Yearbook 1990, v. I, p. 495–522.

Roskill Information Services Ltd., 1995, Gold—Market 

update, analysis, and outlook: Roskill Information Services 

Ltd., 145 p., 3 apps., unpaginated.
Gold (Au) 61

Ryan, J.P., 1969, Gold, in Metals, minerals and fuels: 

U.S. Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook 1968, v. I–II, 

p. 529–549.

Ryan, J.P., and McBreen, K.M., 1962, Gold, in Metals and 

minerals (except fuels): U.S. Bureau of Mines Minerals 

Yearbook 1961, v. I, p. 597–618.

West, J.M., 1974, Gold, in Metals, minerals, and fuels: U.S. 

Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook 1972, v. I, p. 567–588.

West, J.M., 1975, Gold, in Metals, minerals, and fuels: U.S. 

Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook 1973, v. I, p. 557–581.

West, J.M., 1977, Gold, in Metals, minerals, and fuels: U.S. 

Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook 1975, v. I, p. 669–696.

West, J.M., and Butterman, W.C., 1978, Gold, in Metals, minerals, and fuels: U.S. Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook 

1976, v. I, p. 591–615.

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Dollars per troy ounce

Year

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION

Figure 1. Annual average gold price.
62 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

Significant events affecting U.S. gold prices since 1970

1971 President suspended convertibility of dollar into gold; dollar devalued by 7.9 percent

1972 Official U.S. gold price increased to $38 per troy ounce

1973 Official U.S. gold price increased to $42.22 per troy ounce, dollar devalued, two-tier gold price terminated, 

Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) oil embargo begins

1974 U.S. citizens allowed to hold gold bullion and coins for the first time in 40 years

1975 U.S. Treasury began public sales of gold stocks

1976 International Monetary Fund (IMF) began 5-year gold sales program; IMF auctions and lower inflation outlook 

drove gold prices down

1977 Hiatus in U.S. Treasury gold sales

1978 U.S. Treasury resumed selling gold; Middle Eastern investors increased gold purchases

1979 Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan; political upheaval in Iran; taking of U.S. hostages

1980 Gold price peaked at an historic daily high of $850 per troy ounce on January 21; IMF completes 5-year gold 

sales program

1982–88 Fluctuating world currency exchange rates, increasing concern about U.S. trade and budget deficits and banking 

problems, and Third World debt

1989–91 Conflict in the Persian Gulf and the breakup of the Soviet Union; erosion of gold’s role as a safe haven for investors;, generally weak economic growth worldwide

1992–96 Gold price remained relatively stable

1997–2001 Central banks of several countries sold large shares of gold holdings to meet common-currency criteria for 

European Union or to demonetize; bank failures or insolvencies in East and Southeast Asian countries

2001 September 11 terrorist attacks

2002–10 Prices surged because of increase in investment in gold stemming from political and economic concerns

Table 1. Annual average gold price.

[Values in dollars per troy ounce]

Year Price

1968 40.06

1969 41.51

1970 36.41

1971 41.25

1972 58.60

1973 97.81

1974 159.74

1975 161.49

1976 125.32

1977 148.31

1978 193.55

Year Price

1979 307.50

1980 612.56

1981 459.64

1982 375.91

1983 424.00

1984 360.66

1985 317.66

1986 368.24

1987 477.95

1988 438.31

1989 382.58

Year Price

1990 384.93

1991 363.29

1992 344.97

1993 360.91

1994 385.41

1995 385.50

1996 389.08

1997 332.38

1998 295.24

1999 279.91

2000 280.10

Year Price

2001 272.22

2002 311.33

2003 364.80

2004 410.52

2005 446.20

2006 605.83

2007 698.95

2008 873.50

2009 974.68

2010 1,227.51

Notes:

1968–93, Englehard domestic market price, 99.95-percent-pure gold, in Metals Week.

1994–2010, Englehard domestic market price, 99.95-percent-pure gold, in Platts (Platt’s) Metals Week.
Hafnium (Hf) 63

Hafnium (Hf)

by Joseph Gambogi

In 1923, hafnium was discovered when Dirk Coster 

and George Charles von Hevesey separated it from zirconium. Anton Eduard van Arkel and Jan Hendrik de Boer first 

produced metal 2 years later by using the crystal bar process—hafnium tetrachloride passed over a tungsten filament 

(van Arkel and de Boer, 1925). Hafnium and zirconium occur 

together in the ore mineral zircon. Until the 1940s, fractional 

crystallization of zirconium-hafnium compounds was used to 

produce limited quantities of hafnium oxide and metal powder. 

In 1948, hafnium metal powder was quoted at $32 per gram 

($32,000 per kilogram). Because of the high costs associated 

with this technique, a more economical means of recovery 

was sought. Development of improved methods to separate 

the two elements began in the 1940s. In 1949, the price of 

hafnium metal powder dropped to $22 per gram ($22,000 per 

kilogram). That same year, Carbide & Chemicals Corp., Oak 

Ridge, Tenn., developed a liquid-liquid solvent extraction 

technique to remove hafnium from zirconium, technology that 

had grown out of the Manhattan Project (Powell, 1961). Commercial production of hafnium arose from the need to produce 

hafnium-free zirconium metal for use in nuclear reactors. In 

1950, a decision was made to use zirconium in the prototype 

land-based Nautilus nuclear reactor for future use in submarines (Wilson and Staehle, 1960, p. 1). In 1951, hafnium was 

selected as the material to be used in the reactor’s control rods.

Hafnium was an expensive laboratory metal in 1945 

when development work on an improved magnesiumreduction process (Kroll process) began at the U.S. Bureau of 

Mines’ (USBM) Northwest Electrodevelopment Experiment 

Station in Albany, Oreg. (Etherington, Dalzell, and Lillie, 

1955, p. 2). A pilot plant to produce zirconium metal using the 

Kroll process began operating in 1947 and was expanded in 

1949, 1950, and twice in 1951 (Kroll, 1937; Kroll, Schlechten, 

and Yerkes, 1946; Kroll, Schlechten, and others, 1947; Kroll, 

Anderson, and others, 1948). It was not until 1951, however, 

that the USBM facility produced several kilograms of hafnium 

metal grading 28 percent hafnium and the balance zirconium. 

By yearend 1951, the USBM produced 3,916 kilograms of 

hafnium oxide that was used to produce 1,395 kilograms of 

hafnium sponge (Smith and Stephens, 1960, p. 84).

Hafnium’s commercial availability coincided with the 

expiration of U.S. Department of Defense contracts for nuclear 

reactors in 1962. The price remained stable at about $165 

per kilogram ($75 per pound) for 15 years, and the continued 

availability of the metal resulted from the growth and development of the commercial nuclear industry (table 1). In 1979, 

equipment failures and operator error caused a partial core 

meltdown at the Three Mile Island (TMI) nuclear power plant 

in Pennsylvania. The TMI and subsequent nuclear accidents 

elsewhere led to more stringent safety regulations in the 

industry as well as public opposition to nuclear power, which 

limited construction of new reactors.

In the 1990s, hafnium use in the nuclear industry was 

primarily for control rods in existing nuclear reactors and as 

an alloying agent in certain superalloys. During this period, 

U.S. consumption and prices for hafnium declined and then 

flattened (fig. 1). No additional orders for nuclear reactors 

were placed, and following the end of the cold war, defense 

spending declined. 

In the 2000s, although nuclear power construction in 

much of the world was flat, nuclear power in Asia increased 

significantly. As of April 2010, in east and south Asia, there 

were 112 nuclear power reactors in operation, 37 reactors 

under construction, and plans to construct an additional 84 

(World Nuclear Association, 2010.) 

Because there are only a few producers of hafnium, 

published prices are not available. U.S. imports of unwrought 

hafnium are included under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 

category 8112.92.2000 that includes all unwrought hafnium 

including bar, sponge, powder, and waste and scrap. The 

import value of unwrought hafnium from France was considered to be the best available price for hafnium; however, 

because this price may include a variety of material, it may 

not necessarily reflect market conditions. The price of hafnium 

metal from 2000 to 2010 fluctuated significantly and reached 

a peak of $606 per kilogram in 2004. Rising prices from 2003 

($193 per kilogram) to 2010 ($563 per kilogram) were paralleled by increased demand from the nuclear industry. Increasing global construction of nuclear powerplants was expected 

to increase future demand for hafnium metal. 

References Cited

Etherington, H., Dalzell, R.C., and Lillie, D.W., 1955, Zirconium and its applications to nuclear reactors, chap. 1 

of Lustman, B., and Kerze, F., Jr., eds., The metallurgy of 

zirconium: New York, McGraw-Hill, p. 1–18.

Kroll, W.J., 1937, The formation of titanium and zirconium: 

Zeitschrift für Anorganishe und Allgemeine Chemie, v. 234, 

p. 42–50.

Kroll, W.J., Anderson, C.T., Holmes, H.P., Yerkes, L.A., and 

Gilbert, H.L., 1948, Large scale laboratory production 

of ductile zirconium: Transcripts of the Electrochemistry 

Society, v. 94, p. 1–20.
64 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

Kroll, W.J., Schlechten, A.W., Carmody, W.R., Yerkes, L.A., 

Holmes, H.P., and Gilbert, H.L., 1947, Recent progress in 

the metallurgy of malleable zirconium: Transcripts of the 

Electrochemistry Society, v. 92, p. 99–113.

Kroll, W.J., Schlechten, A.W., and Yerkes, L.A., 1946, Ductile 

zirconium from zircon sand: Transcripts of the Electrochemistry Society, v. 89, p. 365–376.

Powell, J.E., 1961, Separation of rare earths by ion exchange, 

chap. 5 of Spedding, F.H., and Daane, A.H., eds., The rare 

earths: New York, John Wiley & Sons, p. 55–73. 

Smith, E.W., and Stephens, W.W., 1960, Hafnium reduction 

process, chap. 3 of Thomas, D.E., and Hayes, E.T., eds., The 

metallurgy of hafnium: U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, p. 

83–106.

van Arkel, A.E., and de Boer, J.H., 1925, Preparation of 

pure titanium, zirconium, hafnium, and thorium metal: 

Zeitschrift für Anorganische und Allgemeine Chemie, v. 

148, p. 345–350.

Wilson, W.H., and Staehle, R.W., 1960, History of hafnium, 

chap. 1 of Thomas, D.E., and Hayes, E.T., eds., The metallurgy of hafnium: U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, p. 1–8.

World Nuclear Association, 2010, Asia’s nuclear energy 

growth: London, United Kingdom, World Nuclear Association, April, accessed October, 12, 2011, at http://www.

world-nuclear.org/info/inf47.html.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Dollars per kilogram

Year

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION

Figure 1. Yearend hafnium sponge metal price.

Significant events affecting hafnium prices since 1970

1979 Three Mile Island nuclear accident

1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident
Hafnium (Hf) 65

Table 1. Yearend hafnium sponge metal price.

[Values in dollars per kilogram]

Year Price

1961 88

1962 88

1963 165

1964 165

1965 165

1966 165

1967 165

1968 160

1969 165

1970 165

1971 165

1972 165

1973 165

Year Price

1974 165

1975 165

1976 165

1977 165

1978 182

1979 182

1980 182

1981 215

1982 215

1983 215

1984 231

1985 231

1986 231

Year Price

2000 115

2001 181

2002 324

2003 193

2004 606

2005 213

2006 214

2007 253

2008 332

2009 526

2010 563

Year Price

1987 187

1988 231

1989 231

1990 187

1991 187

1992 187

1993 187

1994 187

1995 187

1996 187

1997 187

1998 187

1999 187

Notes:

1959–99, prices are an average of range, converted from pounds, in American Metal Market.

2000–10, unit value based on the duty-paid unit value of imported unwrought hafnium from France.
66 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

The invention of the spectroscope in 1860 led to the 

discovery of several new elements, including cesium, indium, 

rubidium, and thallium. In fact, the word “indium” originates 

from the distinctive indigo blue lines the element emits in 

the spectroscope. Indium is produced mainly from residues 

generated during zinc ore processing. Prior to 1940, indium 

was used almost entirely for experimental purposes, although 

domestic production had begun in 1926. Because of its rarity, 

about the same as that of silver (Weeks, 1973, p. 242), and 

lack of industrial applications, indium was sold only in small 

quantities during this period. The first commercial application 

came in 1933, when small amounts of indium were added to 

certain gold dental alloys. The Indium Corporation of America 

(ICA) was founded in 1934 and became the major domestic 

producer. From 1940 through 1945, prices were usually determined through individual negotiations between the producer 

and consumer (Ludwick, 1959, p. 9).

The first large-scale application for indium was as a coating for bearings in high-performance aircraft engines during 

World War II (Slattery, 1995, p. 157). Indium increased hardness and helped prevent seizure and corrosion of the bearings. 

After the war, production gradually increased as new uses 

were found in fusible alloys, solders, and electronics. A producer price for indium was first established by ICA in 1946, 

and it remained at the same level through 1963.

From 1973 through 1980, demand increased, especially 

for use in nuclear control rods, and easily accessible supplies 

of raw materials gradually decreased. Indium Corporation of 

America depleted its source of feedstock in Bolivia and then 

obtained source material from Europe. The inability to meet 

demand was the major factor in the price reaching $20 per 

troy ounce during 1980, when the annual average price was 

$17. To increase supply, world producers expanded production 

capacities.

Orders for nuclear control rods dropped when the rate of 

nuclear power expansion decreased in the United States following the Three Mile Island accident in 1979. Increased production led to an oversupply during the recessions of the early 

1980s. By 1983, the price had plummeted to less than $3 per 

troy ounce (annual average was $3.19). In 1988, in response 

to growing demand, especially in the Japanese electronics 

industry, it climbed to nearly $10 per troy ounce.

In the middle and late 1980s, the development of indium 

phosphide semiconductors and indium-tin-oxide (ITO) thin 

films for LCDs aroused much interest. By 1992, the thin-film 

application had become the largest end use (Jasinski, 1993). 

In 1989, indium was included in the list of materials to 

be added to the National Defense Stockpile (NDS) (Schmitt, 

Indium (In)

by Amy C. Tolcin

1989). The original stockpile goal was 42 metric tons (t); 

this was reduced to 7.7 t in 1992. During that same year, the 

Defense Logistics Agency, manager of the NDS, began purchasing indium. The NDS had acquired its highest level, 1.56 

t of indium, by 1994. According to the NDS Annual Materials 

Plan for 1996, indium was to be eliminated from the stockpile, 

but sales would be limited to 1.1 metric tons per year (American Metal Market, 1997). Slightly more than this amount was 

sold in 1997, leaving the inventory at 0.44 t, which was sold in 

December 1998.

In 1995, a tight supply situation with strong demand 

forced the price to increase steadily to a $16.25-per-troy-ounce 

high. The following year, increased supply and the implementation of an efficient recycling process led to a decrease in 

price down to a $6.53-per-troy-ounce low (Roskill Information 

Services Ltd., 1996, p. 34). This dramatic rise-and-fall is hidden in the annual average statistics, which indicate a drop of 

only $0.20 from 1995 to 1996.

In 1998, indium demand declined owing to the second successive year of somewhat less LCD production and 

the introduction of a new thin-film coating technology that 

requires only one-third as much indium per unit as the older 

process (Roskill Information Services Ltd., 1998, p. 2). After 

fluctuating moderately in 1997, the price was steady in 1998.

Annual average prices for indium continued to decline 

through 2002 owing to an oversupply in the metal market, 

which was largely attributed to excessive Chinese production 

in the late 1990s and early 2000s and stagnant demand. 

In 2003, demand for indium began to increase significantly, especially in Japan and the Republic of Korea, owing 

to considerable growth in the LCD market. As LCD technology and manufacturing matured, prices for devices containing 

LCDs fell, which bolstered consumer demand for the technology. On the supply side, indium production was constricted 

owing to shortages of primary raw material in China and the 

closure of a primary indium production facility in France. This 

led to a shortage of metal, causing prices to rise during 2003 

to 2005. 

After the indium price approximately tripled in 2004 

from that of 2003, the price of indium in 2005 reached historical peaks of more than $30 per troy ounce before declining 

to yearend. A brief price leveling that took place at the end 

of 2005 was attributed to industry stockpiling. Japanese ITO 

producers in particular were thought to hold large stocks of 

indium bought in the 2004–05 fiscal year. This, in addition to 

an unexpected slowdown in demand for LCDs, led to a price 

dip at yearend. 
Indium (In) 67

In 2006, indium prices increased during the first quarter and then declined rapidly through yearend. Although the 

availability of primary indium feedstock was further reduced 

and production capacity at ITO refineries and LCD plants in 

China, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan increased, 

continued recycling efforts, especially in Japan, compensated 

for primary supply shortages and alleviated price pressures. 

By 2007, global secondary indium production significantly 

increased and accounted for a greater share of indium production than primary. In mid-2008, indium prices rebounded after 

generally declining during 2007. However, as the recession 

set in globally, prices once again declined in late 2008 through 

the first half of 2009. In the second half of 2009, ITO demand 

began to pick up, particularly in the Republic of Korea, where 

exports of flat-panel displays increased significantly owing to 

China’s household appliance subsidy program and the weaker 

won, causing prices to rally.

References Cited

American Metal Market, 1997, DLA planning sale of indium: 

American Metal Market, v. 105, no. 35, February 20, p. 12.

Jasinski, S.M., 1993, Indium: U.S. Bureau of Mines Mineral 

Commodity Summaries 1993, p. 84–85.

Ludwick, M.T., 1959, Indium, discovery, occurrence, development, and characteristics: Utica, N.Y., Indium Corporation 

of America, 770 p.

Roskill Information Services Ltd., 1996, The economics of 

indium: London, Roskill Information Services Ltd., 111 p.

Roskill’s Letter from Japan, 1998, Indium—Prices may fall: 

Roskill’s Letter from Japan, no. 270, October, p. 2.

Schmitt, Bill, 1989, Pentagon report urges stockpiling of 

indium, rhodium, and ruthenium: American Metal Market, 

v. 97, no. 78, April 21, p. 1. 

Slattery, J.A., 1995, Indium and indium compounds, in KirkOthmer encyclopedia of chemical technology (4th ed.): 

New York, John Wiley, v. 14, p. 155–160.

Weeks, R.A., 1973, Gallium, germanium, and indium, in

Brobst, D.A., and Pratt, W.P., eds., United States mineral 

resources: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 820, 

p. 237–246.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Dollars per troy ounce

Year

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION

Figure 1. Annual average indium price.
68 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

Significant events affecting indium prices since 1970

1973–80 Period of high demand, significant increase for nuclear control rods

1979 Lower demand after nuclear powerplant accident at Three Mile Island

1980–82 Economic recessions

1985 Development of indium phosphide semiconductors and indium-tin-oxide thin films

1989 Indium added to National Defense Stockpile (NDS) acquisition plan

1992–94 NDS acquisition of indium; price declined

1995 Steady price increase owing to tight supply and strong demand

1996 Steady price decline owing to greater supply and significant recycling

1997 Release of more than one-half of NDS holdings

1997–98 Reduced demand owing to decrease in production of liquid crystal displays (LCDs) and to shift to more efficient 

thin-film technology

2003–05 Reduced supply owing to closure of primary production facility in France and several zinc mine closures in 

China; price increases

2005–08 Significant increases in secondary capacity and production in Japan

2008–09 Global economic crisis

Table 1. Annual average indium price.

[Values in dollars per troy ounce]

Year Price

1936 30.00

1937 30.00

1938 30.00

1939 30.00

1940 23.00

1941 12.50

1942 22.50

1943 12.50

1944 8.75

1945 4.88

1946 2.25

1947 2.25

1948 2.25

1949 2.25

1950 2.25

1951 2.25

1952 2.25

1953 2.25

1954 2.25

Year Price

1955 2.25

1956 2.25

1957 2.25

1958 2.25

1959 2.25

1960 2.25

1961 2.25

1962 2.25

1963 2.25

1964 2.40

1965 2.75

1966 2.75

1967 2.75

1968 2.50

1969 2.50

1970 2.50

1971 2.50

1972 2.50

1973 1.77

Year Price

1974 4.42

1975 5.67

1976 8.03

1977 9.77

1978 8.56

1979 13.48

1980 17.00

1981 7.53

1982 4.18

1983 3.19

1984 3.00

1985 2.63

1986 2.61

1987 7.30

1988 9.92

1989 8.55

1990 7.15

1991 6.78

1992 7.01

Year Price

1993 6.43

1994 4.44

1995 12.06

1996 11.86

1997 9.93

1998 9.52

1999 9.42

2000 5.85

2001 3.99

2002 3.42

2003 4.86

2004 18.27

2005 29.42

2006 28.57

2007 24.72

2008 21.31

2009 15.66

2010 17.56

Notes:

1936–66, 99.97-percent-pure indium, Indium Corporation of America, producer price.

1967–93, 99.97-percent-pure indium, U.S. producer price, in Metals Week.

1994–2010, 99.97-percent-pure indium, U.S. producer price, in Platts (Platt’s) Metals Week.
Iron and Steel (Fe) 69

Iron and Steel (Fe)

by Michael D. Fenton

Of the metallic elements, iron is the most useful and 

most abundant, as well as the cheapest. The term “iron” 

refers to alloys that contain too much carbon to be formable 

by forging or rolling. The term “steel” refers to an alloy of 

iron that is malleable in some temperature ranges and contains manganese, carbon, and often other alloying elements. 

Hundreds of individual alloy specifications known as “grades” 

have been developed to produce combinations of strength, 

ductility, hardness, toughness, magnetic permeability, and corrosion resistance to meet the need of modern consumers. The 

ability of steel to be permanently deformed by plastic working 

allows it to be formed into many shapes and sizes (Lankford 

and others, 1985, p. 773). Principal methods of hot and cold 

steel working are hammering, pressing, piercing, extrusion, 

rolling, drawing, and forging.

Price indices of groups of steel products have been 

reported by the major trade publications to show at a glance 

the overall movement of steel prices since 1897 (American 

Metal Market) and 1926 (Iron Age) (table 1). For the purpose 

of this publication, hot-rolled carbon steel bar was selected 

because it has been produced continuously since the adoption 

of the Bessemer steelmaking process in 1875; its historical 

price series is indicative of prices for the range of steel products; and its price does not incorporate the cost of extensive 

processing after hot rolling. 

For the entire period of this review, except during World 

War I, prices of hot-rolled carbon steel bar fluctuated within 

a narrow range, in constant dollar terms. During World War I, 

steep price increases brought about price controls, which were 

also imposed on the industry during World War II (Campbell, 

1948). During the 1960s, prices increased very slowly, but the 

energy crisis of 1970 started a period of rapid price escalation 

as energy costs of steel companies increased rapidly and inflation dominated the economy. Wages of steel industry workers 

were automatically increased because of inflation protection 

clauses in their union contracts. Price increases were necessary 

to keep pace with rapidly escalating costs. From 1971 through 

1974, price controls were instituted in an attempt to halt price 

inflation, but were abandoned when they proved ineffective 

and administratively impractical (fig. 1).

During the early 1970s, a new approach to steelmaking 

gained prominence that caused record highs in steel production (1973) and scrap consumption (1974). Small steel plants 

were erected to produce simple products such as hot-rolled 

bars of steel. The first plants began production in 1965. These 

new plants, called minimills, did not have blast furnaces to 

process iron ore, but instead modern electric furnaces and 

continuous casters were used to melt ferrous scrap and cast the 

raw steel into products at the lowest possible cost. Competition with blast-furnace-based steel mills increased as thin-slab 

continuous casting equipment was adopted, first in 1989, to 

produce products at thinner gauges with ever-improving quality at increasingly lower costs (American Metal Market, 1997; 

33 Metal Producing, 1998). Minimills have been able to capture a significant share of the market by setting prices that the 

previously dominant steel companies were unable to match.

One of the relatively simple products that the minimill 

companies have come to dominate is hot-rolled steel bar. 

Discounts from the quoted prices have been widely available, 

and this was especially true during the late 1970s and early 

1980s as minimill companies gained dominance of the market 

for hot-rolled steel bar. In 1984, the major steel mills stopped 

revising their quoted prices. In 1987, American Metal Market 

discontinued the publication of the major mill price and began 

to report the quoted prices of the minimills, which were more 

representative of market transaction prices. This change was 

marked by the 29 percent drop in the quoted price, to $17.12.

The first half of the 1990s were years of increasing 

domestic demand for steel products and increasing domestic 

capacity to satisfy this demand. U.S. exports and imports of 

ferrous scrap reached record highs in 1990, but there was still 

a trade deficit. By 1997, the American Iron and Steel Institute 

(AISI) reported an indirect steel-trade surplus of 1.1 million metric tons, the first surplus since AISI began tracking 

the measurement in 1984 and perhaps since the late 1970s 

(American Iron and Steel Institute, 1998). This surplus confirmed that U.S. manufacturers were among the world’s most 

competitive producers of high-quality, steel-containing goods 

in 1997. 

Despite rising domestic steel mill capacity, imports 

of semifinished steel increased significantly in 1993; these 

imports were needed to make up for the domestic shortage of 

hot metal capacity in order to satisfy the U.S. market demand 

for finished steel mill products. Domestic producers were also 

unable to keep up with demand for finished steel products. An 

unfavorable currency exchange rate made foreign steel prices 

much more competitive.

A financial crisis began in Asia in 1997 when Thailand 

devalued its currency (Garino, 1999). Prospering economies 

in China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, the Republic of 

Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, and Thailand were seriously weakened. Steel consumption began to decline in these 

countries as they imported less steel and canceled some new 

steel production projects. Generally, significant production 

decreases in Asia were not feasible because sales were needed 

to repay loans granted by the International Monetary Fund to 
70 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

support the economies of these countries (Becker, 1998). The 

financial crisis of 1997 continued to have an adverse effect 

on steel industries throughout the world until early 1999. 

The U.S. steel industry began to rebound modestly during 

early 1999 owing to a reduced availability of low-priced steel 

imports and continued strong steel-product demand. As 2000 

began, the U.S. economic expansion—the longest in U.S. 

history—was showing signs of weakening. Meanwhile, from 

1998 to 2003, prices for steel products declined to record lows 

in 2001, when an economic recession in the United States 

occurred between March 2001 and November 2001.

From 2004 through 2007, increasing global demand, 

company consolidations that decreased competition, and a 

weakening dollar, combined to result in large annual price 

increases (Fletcher, 2008). In late 2007, domestic demand for 

steel decreased, because of the weakening housing construction and automobile markets, which caused U.S. steel prices to 

decline below those in Europe and China. Prices of steel mill 

products spiked significantly during mid-2008, because of a 

combination of possible factors—rising costs of raw materials, 

strong global demand, and diminishing imports into the United 

States of less expensive steel products, caused by a weak dollar, which, in turn, allowed U.S. steelmakers to raise the prices 

to take advantage of demand by U.S. manufacturers.

The U.S. and global economic crises in late 2008 eventually brought about a global decline in steel demand. World 

apparent steel consumption declined in 2009 as did steel 

production. Steel prices decreased significantly from late 2008 

through 2009, and then rebounded significantly, as the world 

economy began to recover, and steel consumption and production increased.

References Cited

American Iron and Steel Institute, 1998, AISI issues report 

on 1997 U.S. indirect steel trade—First surplus achieved in 

14 years of tracking: Washington, D.C., American Iron and 

Steel Institute press release, April 15, 2 p.

American Metal Market, 1997, Minis playing hot band hand: 

American Metal Market, v. 105, no. 27, February 7, p. 1.

Becker, George, 1998, Steel import woes have deep roots: 

American Metal Market, v. 106, no. 208, October 29, p. 10.

Campbell, R.F., 1948, The history of basic metals price control 

in World War II: New York, Columbia University Press, 

263 p.

Fletcher, M.A., 2008, Steel—Forging a comeback: The 

Washington Post, May 28, p. D1.

Garino, R.J., 1999, Bull or bear, place your bets: Scrap, v. 56, 

no. 1, January/February, p. 44.

Lankford, W.T., Jr., Samways, N.L., Craven, R.F., and McGannon, H.E., eds., 1985, The making, shaping and treating of 

steel: Pittsburgh, Pa., Herbick & Held, 1,572 p.

33 Metal Producing, 1998, Mini-mills moving up: 33 Metal 

Producing, v. 36, no. 1, January, p. 34.
Iron and Steel (Fe) 71

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Dollars per one hundred pounds

Year

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION

Figure 1. Annual average hot-rolled steel bar price.

Significant events affecting steel prices since 1970

1970 Beginning of energy crisis

1971–74 Price controls in effect

1973 Peak raw steel and pig iron production and peak scrap consumption by steel mills; export restrictions imposed

1974 Peak scrap consumption (steel mills and ferrous foundries)

1989 First thin-slab continuous caster for flat-rolled steel products began operating at minimill facility

1990 U.S. exports and imports of ferrous scrap reached record highs

1997–99 Asian financial crisis 

2002–08 Significant price increases, spiking in 2008

2008–09 Global financial crisis
72 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

Table 1. Annual average hot-rolled steel bar price.

[Values in dollars per one hundred pounds]

Year Price

1897 0.99

1898 0.95

1899 1.95

1900 1.61

1901 1.44

1902 1.58

1903 1.56

1904 1.33

1905 1.48

1906 1.51

1907 1.60

1908 1.48

1909 1.31

1910 1.43

1911 1.26

1912 1.25

1913 1.38

1914 1.15

1915 1.31

1916 2.48

1917 3.49

1918 2.89

1919 2.43

1920 2.99

1921 1.89

1922 1.70

1923 2.33

1924 2.20

1925 2.04

Year Price

1926 1.99

1927 1.84

1928 1.87

1929 1.92

1930 1.73

1931 1.63

1932 1.58

1933 1.64

1934 1.81

1935 1.80

1936 1.92

1937 2.40

1938 2.35

1939 2.19

1940 2.15

1941 2.15

1942 2.15

1943 2.15

1944 2.15

1945 2.21

1946 2.47

1947 2.72

1948 3.09

1949 3.35

1950 3.47

1951 3.70

1952 3.78

1953 4.05

1954 4.22

Year Price

1955 4.47

1956 4.81

1957 5.25

1958 5.35

1959 5.68

1960 5.68

1961 5.68

1962 5.68

1963 5.74

1964 5.93

1965 5.93

1966 5.89

1967 5.92

1968 6.14

1969 6.56

1970 6.98

1971 7.89

1972 7.13

1973 8.38

1974 10.78

1975 11.43

1976 11.32

1977 12.68

1978 14.01

1979 14.01

1980 16.20

1981 16.95

1982 17.23

1983 20.25

Year Price

1984 22.08

1985 24.10

1986 24.10

1987 17.12

1988 17.25

1989 19.60

1990 20.43

1991 20.60

1992 17.48

1993 18.44

1994 18.95

1995 18.95

1996 18.95

1997 19.75

1998 18.75

1999 17.47

2000 17.00

2001 17.00

2002 17.66

2003 18.58

2004 27.32

2005 35.96

2006 41.90

2007 36.09

2008 50.41

2009 35.64

2010 42.17

Notes:

1897–February 1987, hot-rolled carbon steel bars merchant, Pittsburgh base, dollars per hundredweight, in American Metal Market. 

March 1987–2010, hot-rolled carbon SBQ (special bar quality) 1000 series, in American Metal Market.
Iron and Steel Scrap (Fe) 73

Iron and Steel Scrap (Fe)

by Michael D. Fenton

Iron and steel (ferrous) scrap is generated within steel 

mills and foundries (home scrap) or industrial plants (prompt 

or industrial scrap) while fabricating new iron and steel 

products, and from objects discarded because of obsolescence 

(obsolete scrap). Ferrous scrap recycling is a complex industry 

that is dependent on the vigor of the two major consumers of 

scrap—steel mills and ferrous foundries. Thousands of scrap 

facilities employ tens of thousands of people to collect, process, and distribute scrap in several regional U.S. markets and 

the international export market.

In a free-market economy when Government price controls are not in effect, scrap prices react quickly to changes in 

supply and demand. Scrap prices seem to be more sensitive 

to demand changes. When demand for steel mill and foundry 

products is low, demand for scrap is low, and prices fall. 

Dealers cannot influence sales of scrap if mills and foundries 

do not need it to charge their furnaces. Dealers can hold back 

some scrap from mills and foundries when prices are below 

their costs to purchase and process it. Scrap generated by 

industrial plants, however, must be disposed of each month 

to the highest bidder to make room for more scrap. Prices are 

also influenced by technological changes in steel mills and 

foundries, processing and upgrading to desired physical and 

chemical qualities, the use of scrap substitutes, environmental 

controls and other Government laws and regulations, and foreign demand. Scrap metal prices quoted in major trade publications, such as American Metal Market, have been considered 

by many economists to be an excellent barometer of current 

industrial demand. Of particular interest is the No. 1 Heavy 

Melting Steel (No. 1) composite price of three cities—Chicago, Ill., Philadelphia, Pa., and Pittsburgh, Pa.—which has 

been recorded by American Metal Market since 1907 (table 1).

During the past 90 years, the price of No. 1 responded to 

supply-and-demand forces in a free-market economic environment, and price fluctuations were sometimes dramatic from 

year to year. The Great Depression (1929–33) was a period 

of declining manufacturing activity, with alltime record lows 

in demand and prices for scrap from 1931 to 1933. During 

World Wars I and II, demand increased to the point that the 

Government adopted price controls to halt scrap price inflation 

(Campbell, 1948). The price of No. 1 nearly tripled as a result 

of high demand during World War II. The Government also 

adopted price controls during the Korean conflict.

During the early 1970s, a new approach to steelmaking gained prominence, which caused record highs in steel 

production (1973) and scrap consumption (1974) (fig. 1). New, 

comparatively small steel plants were built to produce simple 

products, such as hot-rolled bars of steel. These new plants, 

called minimills, did not have blast furnaces to process iron 

ore; instead, modern electric furnaces and continuous casters 

were used to melt ferrous scrap and to cast the raw steel into 

products at the lowest possible cost (Iron and Steelmaker, 

1998). Minimills have been able to capture a significant share 

of the market by setting prices that the previously dominant 

steel companies were unable to match. By 1990, U.S. exports 

and imports of ferrous scrap to feed minimills built in the 

United States and abroad reached record highs.

Ferrous scrap prices declined significantly during 1991 

as domestic and world demand for scrap decreased. Domestic 

demand began to increase during 1992, and world demand 

remained weak. The period from 1993 to the first half of 

1997 was one of strengthening demand for ferrous scrap and 

rising prices. Developing countries in Asia, Eastern Europe, 

and Latin America experienced significant economic growth. 

Minimill capacity increased worldwide, and integrated steel 

mills increased efficiency and scrap usage.

A financial crisis began in Asia in 1997 when Thailand 

devalued its currency. Prospering economies in China, Hong 

Kong, Indonesia, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, 

Singapore, Taiwan, and Thailand were seriously weakened. 

Asian ferrous scrap purchases decreased, and prices of scrap 

declined, which adversely affected the United States scrap 

industry (Gavaghan, 1998).

The Asian financial crisis of 1997 continued to have an 

adverse financial effect on steel industries throughout the 

world until early 1999. During this period, U.S. mills reduced 

steel scrap consumption, which led to an oversupply of scrap. 

The U.S. steel industry began to rebound modestly during 

early 1999 owing to a reduced availability of low-priced steel 

imports and continued strong steel-product demand. The U.S. 

scrap industry began a slow but steady recovery as a result of 

increasing demand for scrap in Asia and North America and a 

reduced supply of scrap from the Commonwealth of Independent States. As 2000 began, the U.S. economic expansion—the 

longest in U.S. history, beginning in March 1991—was showing signs of weakening. Meanwhile, from 1997 to 2001, prices 

for steel products and ferrous scrap declined steadily to record 

lows. Owing to an economic recession that occurred between 

March and November, scrap prices in 2001 were at the lowest 

level since 1986. 

Ferrous scrap prices generally increased from late 2001 

to an historic high in 2008, resulting from economic growth in 

the United States and developing countries, especially China, 

and steadily increasing worldwide apparent steel consumption 
74 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

and demand for scrap by growing steel-producing industries. World Steel Dynamics (WSD) reported a shortage of 

scrap and scrap substitutes by 2004, which may have caused 

the spike in scrap prices in 2004. WSD predicted that the 

obsolete scrap supply would increase only slightly more than 

demand through 2015 (American Metal Market, 2004). The 

International Iron and Steel Institute (now the World Steel 

Association) also determined that scrap availability would 

barely meet steel industry demand through 2015 (Yayan, 

2005). 

Prices of steel mill products spiked significantly during 

mid-2008, perhaps caused by a decreasing availability of steel 

scrap and a strong domestic and global demand for scrap and 

steel mill products. The U.S. and global economic crises eventually brought about a global decline in steel demand in late 

2008. World apparent steel consumption declined as did steel 

production and demand for scrap and scrap substitutes. Scrap 

prices decreased significantly from late 2008 through 2009, 

and then rebounded to nearly 2008 highs in early 2011. As 

the world economy began to recover, steel consumption and 

production increased, and demand for scrap increased.

References Cited

American Metal Market, 2004, Steelmakers face ongoing 

shortfall in metallics—WSD: American Metal Market, 

v. 112, no. 49–1, December 6, p. 1.

Campbell, R.F., 1948, The history of basic metals price control 

in World War II: New York, Columbia University Press, 

263 p.

Gavaghan, B.P., 1998, World steel industry faces uncertain economic future: Iron and Steelmaker, v. 25, no. 12, 

December, p. 25–26.

Iron and Steelmaker, 1998, I&SM continuous caster roundup: 

Iron and Steelmaker, v. 25, no. 11, p. 14–31.

Yayan, Veysel, 2005, OECD Special meeting at high-level 

on steel issues: The outlook for steel conference: Brussels, 

Belgium, January 12–13, 2005, 7 p., accessed October 7, 

2011, at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/17/54/34356750.pdf.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Dollars per metric ton

Year

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION

Figure 1. Annual average U.S. steel scrap price.
Iron and Steel Scrap (Fe) 75

Significant events affecting steel scrap prices since 1970

1973 Peak raw steel and pig iron production and peak scrap consumption by steel mills; price controls and export 

restrictions imposed

1974 Peak scrap consumption (steel mills + ferrous foundries); export restrictions imposed

1989 First thin-slab continuous caster for flat-rolled steel products began operating at minimill facility

1990 U.S. exports and imports of ferrous scrap reached record highs

1997–99 Asian financial crisis

2008 Scrap prices spiked temporarily during midyear

2008–09 Global financial crisis 

Table 1. Annual average U.S. steel scrap price.

[Values in dollars per metric ton]

Year Price

1907 16.27

1908 13.40

1909 15.49

1910 14.48

1911 12.20

1912 13.08

1913 11.94

1914 10.33

1915 12.07

1916 17.13

1917 28.62

1918 28.11

1919 18.05

1920 23.57

1921 12.46

1922 15.58

1923 18.89

1924 16.91

1925 16.91

1926 15.33

1927 13.94

1928 14.13

1929 15.97

1930 13.25

1931 9.58

1932 7.29

Year Price

1933 9.20

1934 10.74

1935 11.52

1936 14.48

1937 17.63

1938 13.21

1939 15.95

1940 18.22

1941 19.12

1942 18.87

1943 18.87

1944 18.33

1945 18.84

1946 19.83

1947 35.08

1948 40.89

1949 27.06

1950 34.78

1951 42.46

1952 41.23

1953 39.27

1954 28.29

1955 39.12

1956 52.61

1957 46.36

1958 37.21

Year Price

1959 37.09

1960 32.68

1961 35.80

1962 27.89

1963 26.47

1964 35.92

1965 33.73

1966 30.18

1967 27.19

1968 25.53

1969 30.08

1970 44.24

1971 33.92

1972 36.05

1973 56.76

1974 106.13

1975 71.37

1976 76.74

1977 63.05

1978 75.92

1979 97.41

1980 91.42

1981 91.86

1982 62.72

1983 71.76

1984 86.52

Year Price

1985 68.93

1986 73.00

1987 84.41

1988 107.26

1989 105.61

1990 105.46

1991 91.79

1992 84.67

1993 112.44

1994 126.82

1995 135.03

1996 130.60

1997 130.45

1998 108.30

1999 94.15

2000 95.88

2001 74.90

2002 92.56

2003 120.99

2004 210.45

2005 192.44

2006 218.91

2007 252.80

2008 348.86

2009 207.58

2010 326.34

Note:

Composite price of No. 1 Heavy Melting Steel scrap at Chicago, Ill., Philadelphia, Pa., and Pittsburgh, Pa., (three-city average). As defined by the Institute of 

Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc., No. 1 Heavy Melting Steel is wrought iron and (or) steel scrap 1⁄4 inch and more in thickness. Individual pieces not more than 

60 x 24 inches (changing box size) are prepared in a manner to ensure compact charging in American Metal Market.
76 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

Iron Ore (Fe)

by John D. Jorgenson

The first known use of iron ore from the United States 

was in 1608 when several barrels of ore from Maryland or 

Virginia were shipped to England for testing. The first regular 

U.S. production of iron ore was established in Massachusetts 

in about 1645 at a blast furnace north of Boston. During the 

next 100 years, many new mines were opened as iron making 

spread southward and westward. By 1885, iron ore had been 

discovered in Michigan and Wisconsin, and annual iron ore 

production had increased to more than 2 million metric tons.

From well before 1900 and into 2000, virtually all iron 

ore has been used to make steel, so the iron ore industry’s fortunes were and continue to be inextricably linked to those of 

the steel industry. In 1904, the United States was the world’s 

largest iron ore producer, accounting for about 60 percent of 

total world output of 46 million metric tons. Despite this, the 

United States was already a net importer of iron ore, if only by 

a small margin. After domestic production peaked at 127 million metric tons during World War II, it became apparent that 

U.S. reserves of high-grade ore would be seriously depleted by 

the 1950s. It was in this decade that production of high-grade 

pelletized concentrate began.

Iron ore is used to make iron and steel. Iron is the most 

useful, abundant, and cheapest of the metallic elements. In 

metallurgical terms, “iron” refers to alloys that contain too 

much carbon to be formable by forging or rolling. The term 

“steel” refers to an alloy of iron that is malleable at some 

temperature ranges and contains carbon, manganese, and often 

some other alloying elements. Steel is made using the blast 

furnace/basic oxygen furnace (BF/BOF) process or the electric 

arc furnace (EAF) process. The BF/BOF process first makes 

iron by smelting iron ore in a blast furnace and then using that 

iron to make steel in a BOF. In the EAF process, iron and steel 

scrap (and often direct reduced iron) are melted to produce 

steel.

Almost all (98 percent) iron ore is used to make iron and 

steel, so its price is determined by what steelmakers are willing to pay for it and that is based on how the ore performs in 

the iron-making process—whether it raises or lowers the cost 

of producing steel. The performance of iron ore in the ironmaking process is determined by its chemical composition 

and by its structure or form, both of which affect blast furnace 

productivity. The chemical constituents that affect the productivity of a blast furnace are iron content, levels of the undesirable substances silica and alumina, moisture and impurities, 

and levels of the desirable substances limestone and dolomite.

Primary market product forms also affect blast furnace 

productivity—fines (fine ores), lump, and pellets. Fines are 

defined as iron ore with the majority of individual particles 

measuring less than 4.75 millimeters (mm) (3/16 inch) in 

diameter. Lump is iron ore with the majority of individual 

particles measuring more than 4.75 mm in diameter. Fines and 

lump are produced from the same ore and are separated by 

screening and sorting; neither product is concentrated. Pellets, 

the third product form, begin as a fine-grained concentrate. A 

binder, often clay, is added to the concentrate, which is then 

rolled into balls. The balls then pass through a furnace, where 

they are indurated and become pellets, usually measuring from 

9.55 to 16.0 mm (3⁄8 to 5⁄8 inch) in diameter. Minor quantities of 

iron ore concentrate are also sold.

Although fines and lump ores cost about the same to produce, fines sell at lower prices than lump because they must 

be agglomerated (sintered) by the steel mill before they can be 

charged to the blast furnace. This is done to improve permeability of the furnace burden and to prevent loss of fines up 

the stack. Pellets can be charged directly into the blast furnace 

as can lump ore, but the latter can decrepitate in the furnace, 

thereby lowering its value to the steel mill operator. Pellets are 

usually the most desirable form of iron ore because they contribute the most to the productivity of the blast furnace. Lump 

ore is the next most desirable ore in terms of blast furnace 

productivity. The least desirable form is fines.

If the chemistry and structure of an iron ore are favorable, 

then iron- and steel-making costs are reduced, and the steelmaker is willing to pay a higher per-unit price for this ore than 

for one with less favorable properties. Although an ore with a 

high iron content and good structure is desirable for increasing 

productivity in a blast furnace, preference may be given to a 

lower quality ore if the price is low enough to compensate for 

its less favorable characteristics. However, in direct reduction, 

ore-quality parameters are very stringent. The direct reduction 

process uses pellets and lump with chemical characteristics 

that have historically supported a price premium over blast 

furnace grades. Fines-based direct reduction processes have 

been developed more recently.

A steelmaker’s preference for pellets compared to fines is 

reflected in the prices. From 1976 through 2009, the average 

price for Brazilian fines was $36.85 per metric ton, and the 

average for Brazilian pellets was $59.00 per metric ton (tables 

1 and 2). Although iron ore prices rose from 1976 to 2009, 

when adjusted for inflation, the price of fines rose and the 

price of pellets declined. The price for fines in constant dollars 

during the period increased by 13 percent and the price for 

pellets in constant dollars dropped by 31 percent. The inflation adjustment factor used was the Consumer Price Index for 

All Urban Consumers (CPI) from the U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics. The CPI base year used was 1992.
Iron Ore 77

Another factor that affects which form of iron ore is used 

is steel demand. When demand is low, European and Japanese 

steelmakers switch to fines because they do not have to be 

concerned with productivity targets. In a tight market, more 

pellets and lump are consumed. 

Until the 1980s, there were two international iron ore 

price structures, each related to a specific geographic area—

North America and the other market economy countries (Franz 

and others, 1986). In North America, more than three-quarters 

of iron ore production capacity was owned directly by its consumers, the integrated steel companies. These equity ownership conditions led to stable “cost-plus” pricing, meaning the 

iron ore producers were paid what it cost them to produce the 

ore, plus royalty and management fees. Prior to this, there was 

very little need to be competitive (Marcus and others, 1996). 

Demand was high, and the North American iron ore industry 

was growing, as it had for 25 years. Pellet production capacity 

expanded steadily from its first commercialization in 1955 to a 

peak capacity of 127 million metric tons in 1980. 

In 1982, major structural changes occurred in the domestic iron ore industry, one of which was the development of 

a U.S. spot market for pellets. Most spot sales are individually negotiated, one-time contracts made directly between 

buyer and seller. The spot market led to the beginning of 

price competition and a winding down of the traditional U.S. 

Lower Lakes iron ore pricing system, which had served the 

iron ore industry for 100 years. Previously, only annual sales, 

multiyear contracts, or equity ownership transactions existed. 

The North American iron ore industry had to cut capacity and 

lower prices to make domestic ore competitive with imported 

material. This meant that the industry had to lower production costs to remain in business, which was done by greatly 

improving labor productivity, reducing wages, negotiating 

lower cost power contracts and royalty agreements, pressing 

suppliers to reduce prices for materials, lobbying legislators 

for tax breaks, and paying off debt. The results were dramatic. 

Domestic mines cut costs by 30 percent, reduced capacity by 

one-third, and lowered prices by 42 percent by the late 1980s. 

Domestic producers have continued their efforts to reduce 

costs. The spot market has persisted and, with the reduction of 

steel mill ownership of iron ore mines to less than 60 percent 

by 2008, has grown stronger.

Exported iron ore is traded in the seaborne market, and 

prices are determined by global market forces. Two iron ore 

price lists, one for prices of ore to Europe and the other for 

prices to Japan and other Asian countries, have been widely 

published. All iron ore is priced in U.S. dollars, which facilitates comparison. The unit pricing system is used to accommodate variations in iron content. Prices are quoted in U.S. cents 

per ton unit of iron. A unit is 1/100, or 1 percent, of the weight 

of a ton of iron so that 1 metric ton unit corresponds to 1/100th 

of a metric ton. This means that a steelmaker that buys 1 ton 

of ore that is about 65 percent iron is paying for 1 ton of iron 

contained in that ore and will receive about 11⁄2 tons of ore.

Global iron ore prices are usually set during lengthy 

negotiations between Brazilian iron ore producers and German 

steelmakers and between Australian producers and Japanese 

and other Asian steelmakers. Australia and Brazil with roughly 

equal shares dominate the export market and have a combined 

share of world iron ore seaborne exports of about 65 percent; 

the next largest exporter, India, has only about a 10-percent 

share. In the late 1980s, Europe and Japan were the leading 

importers, with roughly equal shares, and had a combined 

share of world imports of nearly 60 percent. More recently, 

China has taken over the role as world’s leading importer 

with about 50 percent of world imports. Other large importing 

countries include Japan (15 percent), Germany (from 5 to 6 

percent), and the Republic of Korea (from 5 to 6 percent).

Annual contract pricing was the norm until 2009, with 

the price agreed on for ore sold to Europe applicable for the 

calendar year effective January 1 of that year. For ore sold to 

Asia, prices were set for the Japanese fiscal year, which began 

on April 1 and ended on March 31. The price for iron ore fines 

was usually settled first because it was the predominant type 

of ore used in Europe and Asia. Prices for pellets and lump ore 

were then set based as a premium on the fines prices.

The steel recession that resulted from the OPEC oil 

embargo in the 1970s created downward pressure on iron 

ore prices that can be seen in the Brazilian fines price for 

1978, the lowest level of the 1976-through-1998 period. 

(See price tables). As the world economy recovered, iron ore 

prices peaked in 1982. After 1982, prices dropped as a result 

of decreased consumption owing to the 1981–82 recession, 

which, combined with major increases in iron ore production 

capacity in Australia, Brazil, and Venezuela, created an oversupply. During this period, one U.S. steelmaker permanently 

closed 16 percent of its production capacity. U.S. iron ore 

production fell from 73.4 million tons in 1981 to 36.0 million 

tons in 1982.

Iron ore prices continued to fall until 1989, when economic conditions began to improve (figs. 1 and 2). Decreasing 

steel production caused prices to fall from 1991 until 1994 

when they began rising as the world steel industry enjoyed a 

number of years of increased production. In 1997, domestic 

steelmakers increased net shipments of steel mill products for 

the seventh consecutive year, the longest consecutive increase 

in shipments ever.

During the second half of 1998, the U.S. steel industry became a victim of the world’s growing financial crisis (Hogan, 1999). With the spread of the Asian economic 

recession, steel demand and regional export opportunities 

declined and Asian steel producers, particularly in Japan and 

the Republic of Korea, started to divert more of their products 

for export, much of it aimed at the United States. Despite high 

demand for steel, U.S. steel shipments decreased by about 3 

percent compared with those of 1997. Lower steel production 

in the United States and the rest of the world in 1998 caused 

the Brazilian fines price for 1999 to fall to $26.96, a decrease 

of more than 9 percent.

Lower global steel production beginning in 1998 caused 

the value (constant 1992 dollars) of world iron ore production 

to decrease by almost 20 percent between 1998 and 2002. 
78 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

With the decline in the market leading into 2001, many highcost producers in the United States declared bankruptcy or 

ceased production, resulting in consolidations in the iron ore 

and steel industries. This period was also characterized by 

union concessions to the iron ore industry and increases in 

mine and plant operating efficiencies, each serving to reduce 

operating costs. The consolidations in the iron ore industry can 

best be exemplified by comparing control of iron ore production in the United States in 2000 with that of 2004. In 2000, 

three companies controlled slightly more than 50 percent of 

domestic iron ore production, with nine companies controlling 

the balance. By 2004, three companies controlled 90 percent 

of production, with two companies controlling the balance.

During this same period in the United States, integrated 

steel companies, the consumers of iron ore, underwent 

major structural changes—U.S. Steel Corp. and Nucor Corp. 

increased their market shares; Bethlehem Steel Corp. and 

LTV Corp. filed for bankruptcy; and Mittal Steel USA (part of 

ArcelorMittal) was formed from Ispat Inland Inc. and Wilbur 

Ross’s International Steel Group Inc. Many of the smaller steel 

producers in the United States went out of business; in 2000, 

they represented over one-third of the U.S. steel industry, and 

by 2004, they represented less than one-fourth (Jorgenson, 

2006). U.S. iron ore production capacity appears to be in 

close balance with steel industry consumption requirements at 

yearend 2010, considering the transport logistics for the U.S. 

iron ore and steel industries, much of which is centered in the 

Great Lakes region (Clevenstine, 2011). Over the next several 

years, it is expected that no undue pressures will be exerted on 

the price of iron ore in the North American market barring a 

steep drop in demand for steel.

Worldwide, an unprecedented period of economic expansion began in 2001 fueled by increased consumption of industrial and consumer goods in China. The three leading iron 

ore producers were able to take advantage of the increased 

demand for iron ore, as Brazil’s Vale S.A. (Rio de Janeiro) 

(formerly Companhia Vale do Rio Doce), Australia’s BHP 

Billiton Ltd. (Melbourne), and Rio Tinto plc (London, United 

Kingdom) expanded the production capacity of their iron ore 

operations and opened new mines. These expansions led to an 

increase of more than 110 percent in world production of iron 

ore between 2001 and 2008. In spite of this increased production, the 2001–08 period was one during which demand far 

outstripped world supply, as indicated by a more than fourfold increase in the price (current dollars) of lump ore and a 

five-fold increase in the price (current dollars) of fine ore into 

the Asian market. The economic downturn in 2009 resulted in 

a major correction in prices for iron ore in the form of fines, 

lump, and pellets, but an apparent economic rebound in 2010 

brought world iron ore production and pricing back in line 

with 2008 levels.

References Cited

Clevenstine, Peter, 2011, Minnesota Mesabi Range—

Providing sustainable iron ore to the North American steel 

industry: Montreal, Quebec, Canada, Proceedings of the 

Third Montreal Iron Ore Symposium, Canadian Institute of 

Mining, Metallurgy, and Petroleum, May 23–25, 53 p. 

Franz, Juergen, Stenberg, Bo, and Strongman, John, 1986, Iron 

ore—Global prospects for the industry, 1985–95: World 

Bank Industry and Finance Series, v. 12, p. 32.

Hogan, W.T., 1999, Iron and steel—A historic year for steel: 

Engineering & Mining Journal, v. 199, no. 3, March, 

p. 74–78.

Jorgenson, J.D., 2006, Challenges facing the North American iron ore industry: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2006–1061, 51 p.

Marcus, P.F., Kirsis, K.M., and Kakela, P.J., 1996, North 

American iron ore industry—Opportunities and threats: 

PaineWebber World Steel Dynamics Core Report, January, 

variously paginated.
Iron Ore 79

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Fines, dollars per metric ton contained iron

Year

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION

Figure 1. Annual Brazilian iron ore fines price.

0

50

100

150

200

250

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Pellets, dollars per metric ton contained iron

Year

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION

Figure 2. Annual Brazilian iron ore pellet price.
80 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

Significant events affecting iron ore prices since 1970

1973–75 Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) oil embargo and deep recession

1981–82 Deep domestic recession

1997–99 Asian financial crisis

2001–04 Consolidations in the U.S. steel and iron ore industries

2003 China surpasses Japan as world's leading importer of iron ore

2008–09 Global economic crisis

Table 1. Annual Brazilian iron ore fines price.

[Values in dollars per metric ton contained iron. NA Not available]

Year Price

1976 22.70

1977 23.00

1978 21.50

1979 23.30

1980 28.10

1981 28.10

1982 32.50

1983 29.00

1984 26.15

Year Price

1985 26.56

1986 26.26

1987 24.50

1988 23.50

1989 26.56

1990 30.80

1991 33.25

1992 31.62

1993 28.14

Year Price

1994 24.47

1995 26.95

1996 28.57

1997 28.88

1998 29.69

1999 26.96

2000 27.67

2001 28.92

2002 28.62

Year Price

2003 31.04

2004 36.45

2005 62.51

2006 74.39

2007 81.46

2008 134.41

2009 96.51

2010 NA

Note:

Prices are for Brazilian iron ore fines sold to Europe, f.o.b. Tubarão terminal, Southern System, Vale S.A. (formerly Cia. Vale do Rio Doce) in TEX Report Co. 

Ltd., Iron ore manual.

Table 2. Annual Brazilian iron ore pellet price.

[Values in dollars per metric ton contained iron. NA Not available]

Year Price

1976 43.80

1977 42.80

1978 36.40

1979 39.96

1980 47.05

1981 43.05

1982 47.50

1983 39.00

1984 36.00

Year Price

1985 36.00

1986 36.60

1987 36.70

1988 40.35

1989 47.33

1990 51.60

1991 52.15

1992 48.47

1993 43.64

Year Price

1994 43.64

1995 49.14

1996 52.40

1997 52.10

1998 53.56

1999 46.46

2000 49.24

2001 50.10

2002 47.36

Year Price

2003 52.00

2004 61.88

2005 115.51

2006 112.04

2007 117.96

2008 220.20

2009 113.84

2010 NA

Note:

Prices are for Brazilian iron ore pellets sold to Europe, f.o.b. Tubarão terminal, Southern System, Vale S.A. (formerly Cia. Vale do Rio Doce) in TEX Report Co. 

Ltd., Iron ore manual.
Lead (Pb) 81

Lead (Pb)

by David E. Guberman

Lead is a very dense, ductile, malleable, corrosion 

resistant, blue-gray metal that has been used for at least 5,000 

years. Early uses of lead were in building materials, water 

pipes, and pigments for glazing. The castles and cathedrals of 

Europe contain considerable quantities of lead in roofs, windows, pipes, and decorative fixtures (Shea, 1996, p. 1). In the 

United States, lead was first mined in Virginia in 1621. During the colonial period, lead was mined in New York, North 

Carolina, and several New England States. By the late 1860s, 

most of the mine production of lead came from the lower 

and upper Mississippi Valley regions. A westward expansion of mining began soon thereafter. Many gold and silver 

mines were developed, some of which contained significant 

concentrations of lead. In addition, the Missouri Lead Belt, in 

southeastern Missouri, was developed, as well as the Tri-State 

Lead District, which included Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma. By the late 1950s, depletion of lead reserves in the Lead 

Belt and discontinuation of mining in the Tri-State region 

encouraged the discovery and development of the Viburnum 

Trend mining region in southeast Missouri, thus establishing 

the framework for the current domestic primary lead industry. 

Missouri has been the foremost lead-mining State since 1907 

and has retained that status throughout the century, except for 

1962 when mine output was curtailed by a prolonged strike 

(Hofman, 1918, p. 1–6; Howe, 1980, p. 1–5).

In conjunction with the mining of lead, numerous primary lead smelters and refineries have been operated in the 

United States since primary lead production was first recorded 

in 1825. By 1887, annual production of primary refined lead 

had reached 132,000 metric tons (t). By 1926, production 

increased to a high of 725,000 t, representing 87 percent of 

the total refined lead production. As the production of secondary lead increased, production of refined lead from primary 

sources gradually decreased. In 1997, annual production of 

primary refined lead was 343,000 t, representing 24 percent of 

the total refined lead production. The price of primary refined 

lead increased from $0.04 per pound in the early 1900s to 

$0.12 per pound in 1959, reaching a high of about $0.18 per 

pound during the post-World War II economic boom from 

1946 to 1948 and the Korean conflict in the early 1950s (table 

1). Between 1959 and 1973, lead prices remained fairly stable, 

ranging from $0.12 to $0.16 per pound. This stability was due, 

in part, to the enactment of Public Law 87–374, the Lead and 

Zinc Mining Stabilization Program, in 1961. The program, 

which remained in effect through 1969, authorized payments 

to qualified miners when the market price of lead dropped 

below $0.145 per pound. In the early 1970s, movement in the 

price of lead was restrained by anti-inflation price controls. 

With the lifting of price controls in December 1973, the price 

of lead quickly increased, reaching a historic high in 1979 during the post-Vietnam War economic boom (fig. 1). By the late 

1990s, the price of lead had increased tenfold compared with 

the price at the beginning of the century. In terms of 1992 dollars, however, the price of primary refined lead was $0.39 per 

pound in 1998, compared with $0.59 per pound in 1959.

Historically, lead has not been and is not a price-elastic 

commodity. Its significant uses in any given era have not 

depended on price and, for the most part, other metals cannot substitute for lead in these cases. Prior to the early 1900s, 

uses of lead were primarily for shot, bullets, water lines and 

pipes, pewter, brass, glazes, paints or other protective coatings, burial vault liners, and leaded glass or crystal. With the 

advent of the electrical age and communications accelerated 

by technological developments in World War I, cable lead and 

solders became preeminent. With the growth in production of 

public and private motorized vehicles and the associated use 

of starting lighting ignition (SLI) lead-acid storage batteries 

and terne metal for gas tanks after World War I, demand for 

lead increased. In addition to their continued use in SLI applications, new uses of storage batteries have included motive 

sources of power for industrial forklifts, airport ground equipment, mining equipment, and a variety of other electrically 

powered nonroad utility vehicles, as well as stationary sources 

of power in industrial-type applications, such as uninterruptible electrical power supply equipment for hospitals, computer 

and telecommunications networks, and load-leveling equipment for commercial electrical power systems. Most of these 

uses continued to expand with the population and the national 

economy, and total demand accelerated further with electronic developments (primarily television and video display 

tubes) and demand for leaded gasoline after World War II, 

peaking between 1977 and 1979. With the near phaseout of 

lead in gasoline, paints, solders, and water systems, and the 

imposition of expensive environmental production controls, 

the industry experienced hard times between 1982 and 1986. 

However, the industry made a dramatic recovery by the late 

1980s, owing to massive retrenchment in the primary and 

secondary producing sectors with attendant cost reductions, 

and to expansion in demand for industrial-type battery systems, and record SLI battery shipments. Growth in the battery 

industry continued into the 1990s. By 1997, lead-acid storage 

batteries represented a record high 87 percent of reported U.S. 

consumption of lead. Demand for lead in the battery sector is associated, to a significant extent, with the demand for 

replacement automotive batteries. In 1997 and 1998, there was 

some softness in the price of lead owing to 2 consecutive years 
82 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

of moderate temperatures in the more-populated regions of the 

United States that reduced the rate of failure of automotivetype batteries.

The lead market in the United States evolved from 1998 

to 2010. During this time, secondary lead became an increasingly important component of total domestic lead consumption and production, and reliance on mined lead declined. 

Domestic secondary refined lead, produced principally from 

spent lead-acid batteries, accounted for a greater percentage of 

total reported lead consumption in 2010 than it had in 1998. In 

1998, the 1.06 million metric tons (Mt) of secondary lead produced was equivalent to about 65 percent of reported domestic 

lead consumption. In 2010, about 1.14 Mt of secondary lead 

was produced—nearly 80 percent of reported domestic lead 

consumption. During the same time period, annual recoverable mined lead production in the United States declined by 28 

percent, to 356,000 t from 493,000 t, and annual production of 

primary refined lead decreased 66 percent, to 115,000 t from 

337,000 t. One of two primary lead smelters operating in the 

United States closed in 2003, and the other smelter curtailed 

production levels in 2009. The balance of the lead concentrates that were not smelted and refined domestically were 

exported directly from mines to China and other foreign consumers. The increased reliance on secondary lead meant that 

the price and availability of lead scrap became an important 

component affecting lead prices. Domestic secondary refineries frequently competed with foreign producers for this scrap. 

The development of emerging economies in Asia, specifically China, had a significant impact on lead prices. According 

to the International Lead and Zinc Study Group, refined lead 

consumption in China was 4.21 Mt in 2010, an increase of 

734 percent from 505,000 t consumed in 1998. This increase 

in consumption was attributed to rapid growth in the leadacid battery industry for automotive and industrial uses and 

the increased popularity of battery-operated electric bicycles. 

Mine and refined lead production also increased in China during this period. In contrast to China, refined lead consumption 

in the United States declined slightly during the corresponding period. The strong demand for lead in China intensified 

between 2004 and 2007, and this was a major factor behind 

lead price increases during that period. China removed a 

value-added tax rebate and imposed a 10 percent tax on 

exports of refined lead, leading to significantly decreased 

exports. As a result, an appreciable shortage of refined lead 

was evident in the world market during 2007, which led to a 

substantial price increase. 

Lead prices declined in the second half of 2008 as the 

global economic downturn began to slow global lead consumption. The average North American Producer prices in 

September 2008 were nearly 30 percent lower than they were 

at the beginning of the year. The global lead market moved 

into a state of surplus in 2008, where it remained through yearend 2010. The automotive market was adversely affected during this period, and shipments of lead-acid batteries declined. 

On a global basis, multiple lead-producing zinc mines closed 

or were placed on temporary care-and-maintenance status 

owing to declining zinc and lead prices. Domestically, a leadproducing zinc mine in northeastern Washington was placed 

on care-and-maintenance status owing to reduced demand 

for zinc. North American shipments of lead-acid batteries 

increased in 2010 compared with those of the previous year, 

and North American Producer prices began to increase in the 

third quarter of 2010. By yearend 2010, the price of lead was 9 

percent greater than it had been at the end of 2009. 

References Cited

Hofman, H.O., 1918, Metallurgy of lead: New York, N.Y., 

McGraw-Hill, 664 p.

Howe, W.B., 1980, Viburnum Trend, Missouri—The geology 

and ore deposits of selected mines: Rolla, Mo., Missouri 

Department of Natural Resources Report of Investigation 

58, 56 p.

Shea, E.E., 1996, Lead regulation handbook: Rockville, Md., 

Government Institutes, Inc., 240 p.
Lead (Pb) 83

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Dollars per pound

Year

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION

Figure 1. Annual average lead price.

Significant events affecting lead prices since 1970

1971–73 Price controls in the United States 

1976–79 Post Vietnam War boom—highest historical price

1982–86 More stringent environmental controls imposed on production

1986–91 Industry retrenchment with attendant cost reductions

1992–96 Increasing demand, particularly in lead-acid battery sector

1997–98 Moderate weather in more populated regions—demand for replacement automotive batteries slowed

1998 Consolidation of the primary and secondary lead industries in the United States

2001–10 Significant annual increases in consumption and production of lead in China and emerging nations

2003 One of two primary lead smelters operating in the United States closed

2004–07 Prices increased owing to strong demand in China; global deficit of refined lead

2008–09 Economic downturn; global surplus of refined lead; prices declined
84 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

Table 1. Annual average lead price.

[Values in dollars per pound]

Year Price

1909 0.043

1910 0.044

1911 0.044

1912 0.045

1913 0.044

1914 0.039

1915 0.047

1916 0.069

1917 0.088

1918 0.074

1919 0.058

1920 0.080

1921 0.045

1922 0.057

1923 0.073

1924 0.081

1925 0.090

1926 0.084

1927 0.068

1928 0.063

1929 0.068

1930 0.055

1931 0.042

1932 0.032

1933 0.039

1934 0.039

Year Price

1935 0.041

1936 0.047

1937 0.060

1938 0.047

1939 0.051

1940 0.052

1941 0.058

1942 0.065

1943 0.065

1944 0.065

1945 0.065

1946 0.081

1947 0.147

1948 0.180

1949 0.154

1950 0.133

1951 0.175

1952 0.165

1953 0.135

1954 0.141

1955 0.151

1956 0.160

1957 0.147

1958 0.121

1959 0.122

1960 0.119

Year Price

1961 0.109

1962 0.096

1963 0.111

1964 0.136

1965 0.160

1966 0.151

1967 0.140

1968 0.132

1969 0.149

1970 0.157

1971 0.139

1972 0.150

1973 0.163

1974 0.225

1975 0.215

1976 0.231

1977 0.307

1978 0.337

1979 0.526

1980 0.425

1981 0.365

1982 0.255

1983 0.217

1984 0.256

1985 0.191

1986 0.221

Year Price

1987 0.359

1988 0.371

1989 0.394

1990 0.460

1991 0.335

1992 0.351

1993 0.317

1994 0.372

1995 0.423

1996 0.488

1997 0.465

1998 0.453

1999 0.437

2000 0.436

2001 0.436

2002 0.436

2003 0.438

2004 0.551

2005 0.61

2006 0.774

2007 1.240

2008 1.200

2009 0.869

2010 1.090

Notes:

1909–36, Primary producer price, New York (common lead, 99.94-percent pure), in Engineering and Mining Journal.

1937–66, Primary producer price, New York (common lead, 99.94-percent pure), in Engineering and Mining Journal, Metal and Mineral Markets.

1967–70, Primary producer price, New York (common lead, 99.94-percent pure), in Metals Week.

1971–85, Primary producer price, delivered (minimum 99.97-percent pure), in Metals Week.

1986–93, North American producer price, delivered (minimum 99.97-percent pure), in Metals Week.

1994–2010, North American producer price, delivered (minimum 99.97-percent pure), in Platts (Platt’s) Metals Week.
Lithium (Li) 85

Lithium (Li)

by Brian W. Jaskula

Production of lithium minerals was first reported in the 

United States in 1898. Spodumene and amblygonite from 

California and South Dakota were exported for conversion to 

lithium chemicals. It was not until about 1916, during World 

War I, that lithium chemical production began in the United 

States (Schaller, 1917). Shortly thereafter, the United States 

became the largest producer of lithium minerals and chemicals 

in the world (Schaller, 1917). Dominant production sites 

shifted from the original States to North Carolina in 1942 

(Broadhurst, 1956, p. 11) and Nevada in 1966 (Skillings Mining Review, 1968). In 1976, the U.S. Bureau of Mines reported 

that the United States provided nearly 80 percent of the world 

lithium demand (Quan, 1978). In 1984, lithium carbonate production began in Chile (Foote Prints, 1984). Lithium carbonate 

production shifted from the United States to South America in 

the mid-1990s, with two new operations coming onstream—a 

second operation in Chile in 1996 (Minsal S.A., 1996)—and a 

facility in Argentina in 1997 (FMC Corporation, 1999, p. 28). 

The majority of lithium end uses requires lithium as one 

of its compounds rather than in the metallic form. Although a 

few lithium chemicals require lithium metal for their production, the metal used to produce the chemicals is produced and 

converted by the same company and so is not sold and does 

not enter the market or affect the prices of commercial lithium 

metal products (Lithium Corporation of America, 1985, p. 4). 

Although lithium metal prices were first reported in trade publications in 1952, demand was very low. Small quantities were 

used as scavengers in the production of low-oxygen copper 

alloys, but other uses were just beginning to be investigated 

(Arundale and Mentch, 1955).

From 1952 to 1974, lithium prices remained flat in terms 

of current dollars; in terms of constant dollars, however, prices 

decreased (table 1). The potential use of lithium in batteries for electric vehicles was first discussed in the Minerals 

Yearbook in 1972 (Wininger, 1974). The downward trend in 

lithium metal prices reversed in 1974. At about the same time, 

research efforts increased for identifying aluminum lithium 

alloys for use in aerospace applications. Increased demand for 

lithium in batteries and alloys resulted in steadily increasing 

lithium metal prices until 1998 (fig. 1).

From 1999–2006, prices trended downward, but 

increased in 2007–08 owing to lithium’s increased use in 

battery applications and a temporarily constrained supply. In 

2009, lithium metal prices decreased again (Jaskula, 2011). 

The 1999 price drop was likely the result of the shifting 

of lithium compound production to the lower cost South 

American brine-based salars in the mid-1990s, which resulted 

in lower cost feedstock for lithium metal production. The 

decline in 2009–10 was the consequence of the worldwide 

economic downturn that began in late 2008.

The demand for lithium metal, however, cannot be quantified. Because lithium has been a small industry with very 

few major producers, published information on lithium metal 

production and markets is hard to find. From 2001–05, lithium 

metal prices were not published.

The use of lithium in batteries is expected to continue to 

expand but not necessarily in the form of lithium metal. The 

requirement for lithium metal for those batteries may grow 

more slowly as battery makers search for the optimum battery 

chemistry, balancing energy density, cost, and safety.

References Cited

Arundale, J.C., and Mentch, F.B., 1955, Lithium, in Metals 

and minerals (except fuels): U.S. Bureau of Mines Minerals 

Yearbook 1952, v. I, p. 650–659.

Broadhurst, S.D., 1956, Lithium resources of North 

Carolina: North Carolina Department of Conservation and 

Development Information Circular 15, 37 p.

FMC Corporation, 1999, FMC annual report 1998: FMC 

Corp., 56 p.

Foote Prints, 1984, New lithium frontier in Chile: Foote Prints, 

v. 47, no. 1, p. 2–14.

Jaskula, B.W., 2011, Lithium, in Metals and minerals: 

U.S. Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook 2009, v. I, 

p. 44.1–44.10.

Lithium Corporation of America, 1985, Lithium: Lithium 

Corporation of America company report, 18 p.

Minsal S.A., 1996, First lithium carbonate precipitation 

at Minsal: Santiago, Chile, Minsal S.A. press release, 

October 30, 1 p.

Quan, C.K., 1978, Lithium, in Metals, minerals, and fuels: 

U.S. Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook 1976, v. I, 

p. 767–781.

Schaller, W.T., 1917, Lithium minerals in 1916, in Mineral 

resources of the United States 1916: U.S. Geological 

Survey, pt. 2, p. 7–17.
86 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

Skillings Mining Review, 1968, Foote Mineral Co.’s lithium 

operation in Nevada: Skillings Mining Review, v. 57, no. 3, 

January 20, p. 10.

Wininger, D.C., 1974, Lithium, in Staff, Division of Nonmetallic metals, minor nonmetals, in Metals, minerals, and 

fuels: U.S. Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook 1972, v. I, 

p. 1,362–1,365.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Dollars per pound

Year

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION

Figure 1. Yearend average lithium price.

Significant events affecting lithium prices since 1970

1984 Lithium carbonate first produced in Chile 

1996–97 Lithium carbonate production shifted from the United States to South America 

1999 Lithium prices decreased owing to production from lower cost South American brine-based salars

2007–08 Lithium prices increased owing to expanded battery applications and temporarily constrained supply

2009–10 Lithium prices decreased owing to the worldwide economic downturn. Lithium exploration increased worldwide 

in anticipation of expanded transportation use
Lithium (Li) 87

Table 1. Yearend average lithium price.

[Values in dollars per pound]

Year Price

1952 9.85

1953 11.00

1954 11.00

1955 11.00

1956 11.00

1957 11.00

1958 9.00

1959 9.00

1960 9.00

1961 9.00

1962 9.00

1963 9.00

1964 9.00

1965 9.00

1966 7.50

Year Price

1967 7.50

1968 7.50

1969 7.75

1970 8.18

1971 8.18

1972 8.18

1973 8.18

1974 9.38

1975 11.10

1976 11.60

1977 11.60

1978 13.20

1979 15.65

1980 17.15

1981 20.65

Year Price

1982 20.65

1983 21.70

1984 22.70

1985 24.20

1986 24.20

1987 25.45

1988 26.70

1989 28.30

1990 30.00

1991 31.50

1992 32.45

1993 33.60

1994 35.98

1995 39.05

1996 40.60

Year Price

1997 43.33

1998 43.33

1999 39.05

2000 39.05

2001 34.50

2002 34.75

2003 34.75

2004 34.90

2005 35.05

2006 35.18

2007 40.49

2008 40.57

2009 34.61

2010 33.36

Notes:

1952–57, 98-percent-pure lithium metal, in Engineering and Mining Journal, Metal and Mineral Markets.

1958–65, 99.5-percent-pure lithium metal, in Engineering and Mining Journal, Metal and Mineral Markets.

1966–71, Standard or technical grade lithium of at least 99.8-percent in Oil, Paint, and Drug Reporter.

1972–77, Standard or technical grade lithium of at least 99.8-percent purity, in Chemical Marketing Reporter.

1978–90, Producers average list price for standard or technical grade lithium of at least 99.8-percent purity.

1991–94, Average of producer and published prices for standard or technical grade lithium metal of at least 99.8-percent purity, in Chemical Marketing Reporter.

1995–96, Producers’ average list price for standard or technical grade lithium of at least 99.8-percent purity.

1997–2000, Standard or technical grade lithium of at least 99.8-percent purity, in Chemical Market Reporter.

2001–05, Lithium metal prices not published. Lithium metal prices were estimated based on lithium carbonate price trends.

2006–10, Average values of Japanese imports of lithium metal, in Roskill's Letters from Japan.
88 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

Magnesium (Mg)

by Deborah A. Kramer

Magnesium is the eighth most abundant element and constitutes about 2 percent of the Earth’s crust. It is the third most 

plentiful element dissolved in seawater, with a concentration 

averaging 0.13 percent. Although magnesium is found in more 

than 60 minerals, only dolomite, magnesite, brucite, carnallite, 

and olivine are of commercial importance. Magnesium metal 

was first reported to have been produced by Sir Humphry 

Davy in 1808 by reduction of magnesium oxide with potassium vapor. In 1833, Michael Faraday obtained magnesium by 

the electrolysis of fused anhydrous magnesium chloride, and 

in 1852, Robert Bunsen developed an electrolytic cell for this 

purpose. By the use of a modification of Bunsen’s electrolytic 

cell, magnesium metal was produced on a pilot plant scale 

in Germany in 1886, and by 1909, had advanced to limited 

industrial production. The first magnesium plant in the United 

States was constructed by the General Electric Co. at Schenectady, NY, in 1914. Magnesium production in the United 

States increased steadily and experienced a sharp increase during World War II because of the use of magnesium in incendiary bombs. From 1941 through 1944, supplies of magnesium 

were allocated to manufacturers of military components. 

Seven Government-owned plants were brought onstream during World War II to supply the military demand, and prices 

were controlled from 1943 through 1945 by the Office of Price 

Administration.

After the end of the War, the price controls were lifted, 

and consumer demand was not great enough to sustain the 

wartime production levels. The rearmament program, between 

1947 and 1953, brought a rise in consumption, but when military supplies were replenished, demand declined significantly, 

and the Government-owned plants were closed. Because the 

large demand was not sustained, prices after World War II 

remained constant.

In the 1950s and early 1960s, magnesium prices remained 

steady (table 1). Development of new rolling techniques and 

new alloys helped increase magnesium’s usage, particularly 

in machinery and transportation equipment. By maintaining magnesium’s price at a constant level, these industries 

were encouraged to use magnesium components. From 1964 

through 1974, magnesium that had been acquired for the 

National Defense Stockpile in the early 1950s was released 

because magnesium was removed from the list of strategic and 

critical materials. This stockpile release provided an additional 

source of magnesium to supply the growing demand, which 

kept prices stable.

In 1974, a combination of increased energy costs, rising 

inflation rates, and the surge in use of aluminum beverage 

cans, which contain magnesium, led to a dramatic price 

increase. The price of magnesium nearly doubled within 1 

year (fig. 1). Effects of rapid inflation rates continued to be 

felt through the remainder of the 1970s and into the early 

1980s. As inflation rates decreased, the price of magnesium 

stabilized. In 1987 and 1988, magnesium supplies tightened 

as aluminum consumption increased. Because magnesium’s 

principal use was as an alloying addition to aluminum, its use 

was directly related to aluminum consumption. In addition, 

high-purity magnesium alloys were developed as a measure to 

increase domestic consumption, particularly in automobiles. 

This supply shortage led to increased magnesium prices from 

1987 to 1988.

In early 1990, North American production increased 

with the opening of a new 40,000-metric-ton-per-year (t/yr) 

primary magnesium plant in Canada. Much of the Canadian 

production was imported into the United States, alleviating the 

supply shortage. As a result, producers’ quoted prices dropped 

in 1990, and by the end of 1991, press reports indicated that 

the actual selling price of primary magnesium was about 

$1.10 to $1.20 per pound. These low prices prompted one 

U.S. producer, in September 1991, to request countervailing 

and antidumping duty investigations into imports of magnesium from Canada.

With the dissolution of the former Soviet Union at the 

end of 1991, however, new suppliers entered the world market. Because stockpiles had been built up over many years, 

Russia and Ukraine had significant quantities of magnesium 

available to exchange for hard currency in the world market. 

In spite of the cessation of magnesium imports from Canada, 

U.S. imports were strong because of the increased supply 

of metal, particularly from Russia. As a result, U.S. prices 

dropped significantly in 1992, and a two-tier price system was 

established—a U.S. import price and a U.S. transaction price, 

which reflected prices charged by U.S. producers.

By mid-1992, the U.S. International Trade Commission 

(ITC) had established antidumping and countervailing duties 

on magnesium imported from Canada, so this material essentially was eliminated from the U.S. market (U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 1992). Imports of magnesium from Canada 

were approximately replaced by imports from Russia, so the 

change in U.S. magnesium supplies was not significant, and as 

a result, the U.S. price moderated during 1992 and 1993.

Low unit values for magnesium imported from Russia 

and Ukraine prompted one U.S. producer to request an 

antidumping duty investigation of magnesium imports from 

these two countries, as well as from China, in mid-1994. 

This resulted in a cessation of magnesium imports from these 

countries. As domestic demand, mostly for magnesium com-
Magnesium (Mg) 89

ponents for automotive applications, continued to increase, 

the elimination of imported magnesium from Canada, China, 

Russia, and Ukraine led to tight U.S. supplies. As a result, 

the price began to increase. Supplies remained tight through 

most of 1995, and by midyear, the price escalated to $2.35 per 

pound, the highest price since magnesium’s first U.S. production early in the 20th century.

The ITC established final antidumping determinations in 

April 1995 for magnesium imports from China, Russia, and 

Ukraine (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1995a–c). Because 

the antidumping duty on Russian magnesium was established at 0 percent for all the large producers (as long as they 

imported the magnesium through specified importing companies), magnesium again could be imported from Russia, which 

had been the United States’ largest magnesium supplier.

By 1996, the price began to drop as Russian magnesium 

returned to the United States market. At the same time, the 

countervailing duties on magnesium imports from Canada 

dropped enough so that Canada began exporting significant 

quantities of magnesium alloy into the United States. With 

these sources of imported material, the United States experienced an oversupply of magnesium, and prices dropped 

dramatically by yearend 1996. Also in 1996, the United States 

imported more magnesium than it exported for the first time in 

more than 20 years.

The United States continued to rely on imports of magnesium to meet its increasing demand, so U.S. prices continued 

to weaken slightly through 1998, although they were returning 

to more normal levels following the 1995 price spike. World 

supply in 1997 and 1998 also increased with production from 

a new 27,500-t/yr primary magnesium plant that had been 

commissioned at the end of 1996 in Israel.

In November 1999, Dow Chemical Co. announced that 

it would close its 65,000-t/yr primary magnesium plant in 

Freeport, Tex., and in October 2001, Alcoa Inc. closed its 

45,000-t/yr primary magnesium plant in Addy, Wash. As a 

result, by the end of 2001, the United States had only one 

primary magnesium plant, with a capacity of 43,000 t/yr, and 

became more heavily reliant on imports to supply its needs. In 

the mid-2000s, primary magnesium plants in Canada, France, 

and Norway closed, reducing the number of suppliers to the 

world market. At the same time, China began to assert its 

dominance in world magnesium production, representing 73 

percent of the total by 2004, a significant increase from 35 

percent of the 1999 total. Despite these closures, an oversupply in the market led to price declines until 2004. In the third 

quarter of 2004, U.S. magnesium prices increased. The following factors contributed to the increase in U.S. prices: large 

aluminum producers, such as Alcan Inc. and Alcoa Inc., began 

negotiating contracts for their 2005 magnesium needs; anticipation of a decision in the antidumping duty case on imports 

of magnesium from China and Russia; and the absence of 

low-cost Chinese magnesium in the U.S. market. Magnesium from China had been sold mostly in Europe. This led 

to a short-lived price spike in 2004. By 2005, however, U.S. 

magnesium prices fell. Several reasons were suggested for the 

downturn in prices, particularly in the latter part of the year—

oversupply of magnesium, particularly from Russian producers, and competition from recycled magnesium, which has a 

lower price. Overcapacity in the automobile industry coupled 

with the phasing out of one of General Motors Corporation’s 

most comprehensive truck and sport utility vehicle redesign 

programs also contributed to the price decline (McBeth, 2005).

In general, U.S. magnesium prices fell throughout the 

first three quarters of 2006, then increased significantly during 

the last quarter. In mid-October, the price began to increase 

rapidly because Norsk Hydro ASA announced that it would 

close its Becancour, Quebec, Canada, primary magnesium 

plant by the first quarter of 2007; Becancour was a major 

magnesium alloy supplier to the U.S. auto industry. Another 

factor that contributed to the fourth quarter price increase was 

a feedstock supply interruption at VSMPO-Avisma Corporation’s primary magnesium plant in Berezniki, Russia. These 

factors, in addition to reduced supplies from China because of 

antidumping duties, contributed to an escalation in magnesium 

prices in 2007.

U.S. magnesium consumers began committing to 2008 

annual contracts earlier in 2007 than in the previous year, and 

contract prices were reported to be significantly higher—about 

$1.70 per pound for 2008 compared with 2007 contract prices 

of $1.20 to $1.30 per pound. Consumers feared that prices 

would increase even further. By the beginning of November, 

U.S. Magnesium LLC and Dead Sea Magnesium Ltd. reportedly stopped signing contracts for 2008 because they had no 

magnesium left to sell (McDonell, 2007a, b).

Domestic magnesium prices continued to increase rapidly 

and reached $2.80 to $3.15 per pound by the end of January 

2008, well above the price spike in 1995. From the end of 

2007 through the end of the first quarter of 2008, the average 

U.S. spot Western price increased by nearly $1.00 per pound. 

In the United States, a decline in imports from Russia and 

Canada, two of the leading import sources, caused a supply 

shortage on the spot market.

In the United States, the Platts Metals Week U.S. spot 

Western price range reached a peak of $3.50 to $3.70 per 

pound at the beginning of July. Essentially, two markets 

developed in 2008 after prices peaked—the U.S. market and 

the market in the rest of the world. Although they fell from the 

alltime high in July, U.S. spot prices remained high because of 

antidumping duties assessed on China and Russia. Although 

some magnesium from both these countries was imported into 

the United States, supplies from these countries were not as 

substantial as in the past. Because of sustained high prices, 

weak demand in the auto industry, and the global financial 

downturn, many domestic magnesium consumers did not 

purchase magnesium on the open market and were reluctant to 

negotiate 2009 contracts (Jennemann, 2008).

In 2009, prices continued the decline begun in the fourth 

quarter of 2008. Most of the decline in prices in the United 

States early in the year resulted from renegotiations of contracts, not spot sales. In addition, consumers were delaying 

deliveries because of the slowdown in the magnesium end-use 
90 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

markets and in consumption in secondary aluminum products 

(Jennemann, 2009a). By midyear, consumers had significant 

quantities of magnesium left in their 2009 contracts and were 

not yet negotiating contracts for 2010; spot magnesium sales 

were almost nonexistent. By yearend, prices were significantly 

lower than those at yearend 2008 in response to the weak 

global economy and weak magnesium demand (Jennemann, 

2009b).

Prices in 2010 did not change appreciably, as the U.S. 

economy began a weak recovery and demand began to 

increase but remained higher than levels in the late 1990s and 

early 2000s. Antidumping duties that essentially shut most of 

the magnesium from China out of the U.S. market since 1995 

and reduced shipments from Russia resulted in Israel becoming the principal import source for metal and alloys. U.S. 

Magnesium also announced increases in production capacity; 

projected additional supply also moderated any price increases 

in the United States.

References Cited

Jennemann, Tom, 2008, Magnesium mart slow on uncertainty: American Metal Market, October 17, accessed 

November 6, 2008, via http://www.amm.com/.

Jennemann, Tom, 2009a, Magnesium demand ticks up 

in April: American Metal Market, May 5, accessed 

May 12, 2009, via http://www.amm.com/.

Jennemann, Tom, 2009b, Magnesium mart looking for 

contract flexibility: American Metal Market, August 11, 

accessed August 13, 2009, via http://www.amm.com/.

McBeth, Karen, 2005, Magnesium sees ‘wild ride’ downhill, 

bucking metals trend: Platts Metals Week, v. 76, no. 50, 

December 12, p. 8.

McDonell, Meghann, 2007a, Magnesium contracts met 

sooner and at higher rates: American Metal Market, v. 115, 

no. 25–4, June 28, p. 1–2.

McDonell, Meghann, 2007b, Magnesium suppliers cease 

inking ’08 deals: American Metal Market, v. 115, no. 45–1, 

November 12, p. 1, 6.

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992, Pure and alloy magnesium from Canada—Recission of investigation and partial 

dismissal of petition: Federal Register, v. 57, no. 134, 

July 13, p. 30,939–30,955.

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1995a, Notice of final determination of sales at less than fair value—Pure magnesium 

and alloy magnesium from the People’s Republic of China: 

Federal Register, v. 60, no. 61, March 30, p. 16,437–16,440.

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1995b, Notice of final determination of sales at less than fair value—Pure magnesium 

and alloy magnesium from the Russian Federation: Federal 

Register, v. 60, no. 61, March 30, p. 16,440–16,450.

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1995c, Notice of final determination of sales at less than fair value—Pure magnesium 

from Ukraine: Federal Register, v. 60, no. 61, March 30, 

p. 16,432–16,437.
Magnesium (Mg) 91

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Dollars per pound

Year

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION

Figure 1. Yearend average magnesium price.

Significant events affecting magnesium prices since 1970

1974–79 Increased energy costs and rapid inflation boost prices

1987–88 Tight supply of magnesium because of increased aluminum consumption

1991 Antidumping and countervailing duty investigations of magnesium imports from Canada initiated; dissolution of 

the Soviet Union

1994 Antidumping duty investigation initiated on magnesium imports from China, Russia, and Ukraine

2008 Closure of large primary magnesium plant in Canada leads to supply concerns
92 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

Table 1. Yearend primary magnesium price.

[Values in dollars per pound]

Year Price

1915 5.030

1916 4.130

1917 2.020

1918 1.810

1919 1.830

1920 1.600

1921 1.600

1922 1.600

1923 1.250

1924 1.070

1925 0.860

1926 0.800

1927 0.680

1928 0.550

1929 0.570

1930 0.480

1931 0.300

1932 0.290

1933 0.280

1934 0.260

1935 0.260

1936 0.260

1937 0.300

1938 0.300

Year Price

1939 0.300

1940 0.270

1941 0.230

1942 0.230

1943 0.210

1944 0.210

1945 0.210

1946 0.210

1947 0.210

1948 0.210

1949 0.210

1950 0.250

1951 0.250

1952 0.270

1953 0.270

1954 0.280

1955 0.325

1956 0.353

1957 0.363

1958 0.363

1959 0.363

1960 0.363

1961 0.363

1962 0.363

Year Price

1963 0.363

1964 0.363

1965 0.363

1966 0.363

1967 0.363

1968 0.363

1969 0.363

1970 0.363

1971 0.363

1972 0.373

1973 0.383

1974 0.750

1975 0.820

1976 0.920

1977 0.990

1978 1.010

1979 1.090

1980 1.250

1981 1.340

1982 1.400

1983 1.380

1984 1.480

1985 1.530

1986 1.530

Year Price

1987 1.530

1988 1.630

1989 1.630

1990 1.430

1991 1.430

1992 1.500

1993 1.460

1994 1.630

1995 2.090

1996 1.750

1997 1.650

1998 1.570

1999 1.480

2000 1.270

2001 1.250

2002 1.160

2003 1.140

2004 1.580

2005 1.230

2006 1.400

2007 2.250

2008 3.150

2009 2.300

2010 2.430

Notes:

1915–34, Producers’ average selling prices for 99-percent-pure magnesium bars.

1935–56, Producer price for 99.8 percent-pure magnesium ingot, in Engineering and Mining Journal.

1957–91, Producer price for 99.8-percent-pure magnesium ingot, in American Metal Market.

1992, U.S. transaction price for 99.8-percent-pure magnesium ingot, in Metals Week.

1993–2010, Average U.S. spot Western price for 99.8-percent-pure magnesium ingot, in Platts (Platt’s) Metals Week.
Manganese (Mn) 93

Manganese (Mn)

by Lisa A. Corathers

From antiquity until the latter part of the 18th century, the 

manganese oxide mineral, pyrolusite from the Greek words 

“fire” and “to wash” was considered an iron mineral. Ancient 

Egyptians and Romans used pyrolusite to control the color 

of glass. Small additions of pyrolusite decolorized glass by 

removing the greenish yellow discoloration caused by iron 

impurities, while further additions colored the glass pink, 

purple, or black (Wellbeloved, Craven, and Waudby, 1990, p. 

78). In 1740, J.H. Pott showed that pyrolusite does not contain 

iron. Swedish chemist and apothecary Carl Wilhelm Scheele 

recognized manganese as an element in 1774, and his fellow 

countryman, Johan Gottlieb Gahn, isolated the metal by reducing the dioxide with carbon in the same year. Until about that 

time, manganese was principally used as a colorant in glass 

and pottery. It was apparently for this purpose that manganese ore was first mined in the United States in Virginia and 

Tennessee in the 1830s (Jones, 1985, p. 483).

Use in steelmaking has since become the major application of manganese. Its use for a specific purpose in the 

steel industry dates from 1839, when manganese was 

shown to improve malleability of ferrous articles. In 1856, 

Robert Forester Mushet demonstrated that steel could be 

mass-produced by the Bessemer process, provided manganese 

was added (Williams, 1981). Manganese has since been essential to commercial production of almost all steels. The bulk 

manganese ferroalloy industry was established not many years 

later, and by the 1870s, cheap ferromanganese containing 75 

percent or more manganese was available.

This discussion of manganese price is based on the price 

of manganese units in metallurgical-grade ore, for which a 

lengthy history exists. The most important metallic materials 

containing manganese are the manganese ferroalloys, of which 

high-carbon ferromanganese and silicomanganese have the 

greatest uses. (Manganese metal, a minor component of overall manganese demand, is a brittle substance that has little use, 

except as an alloying element.) The value of manganese in 

upgraded forms reflects the extraction cost so that for materials 

used in the United States in 2009, the ratio of price per manganese unit as contained in upgraded form compared to that in 

ore was, in ascending order: 2.1:1 for high-carbon ferromanganese, 2.3:1 for silicomanganese, and 4.2:1 for manganese 

metal. Price trends for upgraded materials do not necessarily 

parallel those for manganese ore because of the following: 

(1) differences in demand by primary intermediate consuming industries—the iron and steel industries (ferromanganese 

and silicomanganese) and the aluminum industry (manganese 

metal); (2) the fact that most ore is used to produce manganese 

ferroalloys; and (3) differences in world structure and number 

of upgraded manganese material suppliers.

No central exchange has ever existed for setting the price 

of manganese ore. Rather, prices have been established by 

negotiation between buyers and sellers, taking into account 

such factors as manganese content, content of other elements, 

physical characteristics, quantity, and, of considerable significance, ocean freight rates. Trade journals, such as American 

Metal Market and Engineering and Mining Journal Metal 

and Mineral Markets, published prices reflecting their sense 

of the market (Jones, 1988). These journals mainly listed the 

price for metallurgical-grade ore; price listings for ore used 

in battery and chemical applications were fragmentary or 

nonexistent, and by 2001, were discontinued altogether. The 

benchmark price for metallurgical-grade ore is for relatively 

high-grade ore with a manganese content in the range from 48 

percent to 50 percent. Prices stated herein for metallurgicalgrade ore generally meet that standard, although this may not 

be strictly true throughout the entire time interval tabulated, 

particularly when the countries that were dominant sources of 

ore changed (table 1). 

The unit pricing system is used with manganese ore to 

accommodate variations in manganese content. Since 1990, 

the metric ton unit (mtu) contained manganese, has been used; 

formerly, pricing had been based on the long ton unit (fig. 1). 

A unit is 1/100, or 1 percent, of the weight unit, so that 1 

mtu corresponds to 0.01 metric ton, or 10 kilograms (kg) of 

manganese. To determine dollars per metric ton of ore (gross 

weight), multiply the manganese content percentage by the 

price; that is, by 50 when the manganese content is 50 percent. 

For example, an ore priced at $2 per mtu that contains 50 

percent manganese would have a value of $2 x 50 = $100 per 

metric ton. At the price level of $2 per 10 kg of manganese, 

the value of the manganese content of the ore also could be 

expressed as 20 cents per kg of manganese in ore.

Until 2009, the larger year-to-year users of manganese ore tended to make their purchases by means of annual 

contracts, which have always been much more important 

than spot contracts. The U.S. market was once the largest for 

manganese ore; therefore, prices were usually set in the latter 

part of the calendar year for the next year’s shipments. With 

the decline in U.S. manganese ferroalloy smelting, however, 

the Japanese became the most influential in setting annual 

prices since the early 1990s. The timing of price negotiations 

generally revolved around the Japanese fiscal year, which 

begins on April 1. After the price to Japanese consumers 

has been set (this is known as the international benchmark 
94 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

price), settlements on a similar basis usually follow elsewhere 

(Carmichael, 1992). 

The use of annual benchmark pricing started to decline 

in 2008. For the first time, a major Australian manganese ore 

producer, BHP Billiton Ltd., and major Japanese consumers negotiated a range in international benchmark prices for 

metallurgical-grade ore. The contract included a clause that 

would allow Japanese prices to be reviewed on a quarterly or 

semiannual basis based on fluctuations in Chinese manganese 

ore spot-market prices. This was because China had by then 

become an ever-increasing, globally dominant consumer of 

manganese ore (Corathers, 2010). By 2009, BHP Billiton had 

officially abandoned its quarterly pricing system for manganese ore with Japanese consumers, opting rather to negotiate 

separate deals with each buyer in each market (Ryan’s Notes, 

2009).

Between 1970 and 2010, manganese ore prices exhibited peaks in 1981, 1990, 2005, and 2008, and valleys in 

1987, 1994–95, 2006−07, and 2009. Since 1974, prices have 

grown at a compound annual rate of about 6.5 percent. This 

rate is lower than the general rate of inflation as given by the 

Consumer Price Index (all urban consumers), which advanced 

from 1974 to the early 1980s at an average of 7.4 percent per 

year. Since then, however, the manganese compound annual 

growth rate has been higher than the average general inflation 

rate (3.5 percent per year).

From 1970 to 2009, the U.S. Government continued 

to sell sizable quantities of stockpiled metallurgical-grade 

manganese ore that had been mined from domestic and foreign 

sources. This caused the stockpile to become effectively a 

medium-sized “mine,” which generally added downward pressure on U.S. manganese ore prices, particularly from 1976 to 

2004. Stocks of metallurgical-grade ore that had been more 

than 7 million metric tons in 1970 were reduced to zero by 

2009 (DeHuff, 1971; Corathers, 2011). Contributing to the 

relatively stable ore prices during the 1970s was the development of several major mines based on the enormous manganese deposits of the Kalahari Field in South Africa’s Northern 

Cape Province, typified in the north by the Black Rock Mine 

and in the south by the Mamatwan Mine (Coffman and Palencia, 1984). The jump in ore price from 1974-76 and again 

from 1979-81 was attributable to comparatively high rates 

of domestic and international steel production, and the shock 

effect of oil price increases between 1974 and 1981.

After an ore price of nearly $1.70 per mtu was attained 

in 1980-81, prices began to decline in 1982 with the onset of 

a worldwide recession. Prices were relatively flat during the 

mid-1980s, mainly because the more-efficient use of manganese materials in steelmaking depressed demand for manganese ore. For example, by changing the way in which pig 

iron was converted into steel, domestic steelmakers reduced 

their unit consumption of manganese in steelmaking by about 

one-fifth within 2 years. This reduction was much larger than 

the steel-related growth in manganese demand that otherwise 

would have been expected, ordinarily about 1 percent per year.

Between 1988 and 1990, manganese ore prices rose 

sharply to what was then a 3-year record high from $1.27 per 

mtu in 1987; this was concurrent with a recovery in domestic 

and world steel production. Prior to the recovery in steel production, the nature of the international manganese ore market 

was changed when the Soviet Union and China began importing substantial quantities of ore in 1983 and 1984, respectively. The imports were from countries such as Australia, 

Brazil, and Gabon, whose traditional principal export markets 

were Japan, Western Europe, and the United States. With so 

few competitors on the supply side, the market constituted an 

oligopoly. An apparent shortage of high-grade ore attributable 

to unusually large ore purchases led to a price of $3.78 per 

mtu in 1990, a record high at the time.

Prices receded from the 1990 peak and remained relatively flat from 1993 until 2005. One of the main reasons was 

the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the subsequent 

contraction of industrial production in its successor republics; 

this caused the developing ore market to disappear within 

a short period of time. Another factor was the reactivation 

of mining or development at known deposits, as in Western 

Australia (Chadwick, 1991); this led to modest additions to 

supply from what might be termed “mini-mines,” which nevertheless had a significant impact on price negotiations. 

Manganese ore prices between 2004 and 2008 had 

trended upwards, principally because of increased global consumption, particularly by Brazil, Russia, India, and China (the 

BRIC countries), and lower production levels in Brazil, China, 

and South Africa for technical and local economic reasons 

(Corathers, 2010). Rising fuel costs that increased transportation costs also added to the higher manganese ore prices 

during this timeframe. The 2-year dip in ore prices between 

2006 and 2007 reflected an oversupply of manganese ore on 

the world market (Corathers, 2008).

The U.S. and global economic crises that began in late 

2008 eventually brought about a global decline in manganese 

ferroalloy and steel demand. World apparent consumption of 

manganese ferroalloys and steel declined in 2009, as did production. Domestic and global manganese ore prices decreased 

significantly from late 2008 through 2009, and then rebounded 

significantly in 2010 as the world economy began to recover 

and manganese ferroalloy and steel production increased globally.

References Cited

Carmichael, Malcolm, 1992, An introduction to manganese, 

in Bailey, John, ed., Iron and manganese ore databook: 

Worcester Park, England, Metal Bulletin Books Ltd., 

p. xli–xlix.

Chadwick, John, 1991, Pilbara progress: Mining Magazine, 

v. 164, no. 5, May, p. 278–285.
Manganese (Mn) 95

Coffman, Joseph, and Palencia, C.M., 1984, Manganese availability—Market economy countries: U.S. Bureau of Mines 

Information Circular 8978, 26 p.

Corathers, L.A., 2008, Manganese, in Metals and minerals: 

U.S. Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook 2006, v. I, 

p. 47.1–47.16.

Corathers, L.A., 2010, Manganese, in Metals and minerals: 

U.S. Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook 2008, v. I, 

p. 47.1–47.22.

Corathers, L.A., 2011, Manganese, in Metals and minerals: 

U.S. Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook 2009, v. I, 

p. 47.1–47.21.

DeHuff, G.L., 1971, Manganese, in Metals, minerals, and 

fuels: U.S. Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook 1969, 

v. I–II, p. 673–684.

Jones, T.S., 1985, Manganese, in Mineral facts and problems: 

U.S. Bureau of Mines Bulletin 675, p. 483–508.

Jones, T.S., 1988, Manganese, in Metals and minerals: U.S. 

Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook 1988, v. I, p. 651–665.

Ryan’s Notes, 2009, BHP Billiton drops quarterly Mn ore 

pricing: Ryan’s Notes, v. 15, no. 38, September 21, p. 3–4.

Wellbeloved, D.B., Craven, P.M., and Waudby, J.W., 1990, 

Manganese and manganese alloys, in Ullmann’s encyclopedia of industrial chemistry (5th ed.): New York, VCH 

Publishers, v. A16, p. 77−121.

Williams, W.M., 1980, Manganese and its importance to nineteenth century metallurgy: Canada Metallurgical Quarterly, 

v. 19, no. 4, October-November, p. 403-408.
96 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Dollars per metric ton unit

Year

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION

Figure 1. Annual average 48 percent to 50 percent manganese ore price.

Significant events affecting manganese ore prices since 1970

1970–2009 Sales of excess manganese materials in Government stockpile 

1973–74 High levels of steel production

1974, 1978, 1981 Sharp increases in oil price

Early 1980s Global economic recession; strong U.S. dollar

1980s Adoption of steelmaking technology that significantly reduces amount of manganese required per ton of 

steel produced

1983–90 Significant imports of high-grade ore by China and the Soviet Union

1991 Dissolution of the Soviet Union

2004–08 Increased steel production by the BRIC countries

Late 2008 U.S. and world economic crises began

2010 Improved domestic and world steel production
Manganese (Mn) 97

Table 1. Annual average 48 percent-50 percent manganese ore price.

[Values in dollars per metric ton unit, cost, insurance, and freight, U.S. ports]

Year Price

1910 0.26

1911 0.26

1912 0.25

1913 0.25

1914 0.26

1915 0.31

1916 0.49

1917 0.96

1918 1.25

1919 0.65

1920 0.66

1921 0.28

1922 0.31

1923 0.41

1924 0.38

1925 0.42

1926 0.38

1927 0.38

1928 0.37

1929 0.31

1930 0.27

1931 0.24

1932 0.21

1933 0.19

1934 0.23

1935 0.23

Year Price

1936 0.26

1937 0.44

1938 0.36

1939 0.32

1940 0.51

1941 0.65

1942 0.72

1943 0.72

1944 0.67

1945 0.73

1946 0.66

1947 0.58

1948 0.64

1949 0.71

1950 0.91

1951 1.12

1952 1.27

1953 1.19

1954 0.95

1955 1.02

1956 1.44

1957 1.56

1958 1.19

1959 0.97

1960 0.93

1961 0.93

Year Price

1962 0.90

1963 0.80

1964 0.68

1965 0.72

1966 0.75

1967 0.66

1968 0.59

1969 0.49

1970 0.53

1971 0.59

1972 0.59

1973 0.64

1974 0.89

1975 1.36

1976 1.43

1977 1.46

1978 1.38

1979 1.38

1980 1.67

1981 1.69

1982 1.56

1983 1.36

1984 1.40

1985 1.41

1986 1.32

1987 1.27

Year Price

1988 1.75

1989 2.76

1990 3.78

1991 3.72

1992 3.25

1993 2.60

1994 2.40

1995 2.40

1996 2.55

1997 2.44

1998 2.40

1999 2.26

2000 2.39

2001 2.44

2002 2.30

2003 2.41

2004 2.89

2005 4.39

2006 3.22

2007 3.10

2008 12.15

2009 7.38

2010 8.55

Notes:

1910–37, calculated from U.S. Geological Survey and Bureau of Mines, 1940, Report upon certain deficient strategic minerals: U.S. Geological Survey and 

Bureau of Mines, p. 8.

1938–41, Barbour, P.E., 1941, Manganese prices, production and imports: Mining and Metallurgical Society of America Bulletin 263, v. 34, no. 5, December, 

p. 156–161.

1942–62, Engineering and Mining Journal, Metal and Mineral Markets.

1963–77, American Metal Market.

1978–94, Manganese Commodity Specialist, U.S. Bureau of Mines (G.L. DeHuff and T.S. Jones).

1995–2000, Manganese Commodity Specialist, U.S. Geological Survey (T.S. Jones).

2001–10, Manganese Commodity Specialist, U.S. Geological Survey (L.A. Corathers).
98 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

Mercury (Hg)

by William E. Brooks

The most common ore of mercury, cinnabar (HgS), is 

soft and dark red, and native mercury is one of a few metals 

that is liquid at room temperatures. In ancient Turkey, cinnabar was retorted for mercury and the mineral was used as a 

pigment more than 8,000 years ago (Barnes and Bailey, 1972). 

The cinnabar mine at Almaden, Spain, is the world’s oldest 

producing mercury mine and was discovered and named by 

ancient people from North Africa; the Arabic name for the 

metal “azogue” is still used in many parts of South America. 

Mercury from the Almaden mines was used by the Romans to 

amalgamate gold. Mercury from Almaden was also used for 

Spanish colonial gold and silver processing in the New World, 

and the cinnabar deposits at Huancavelica, Peru, provided a 

regional source for this important metal. 

The chemical symbol for mercury (Hg) is derived from 

the Greek work “hydrargyrum,” and means liquid silver. Cinnabar and mercury are associated with some hydrothermal 

mineral deposits and occur in fine-grained or sedimentary and 

volcanic rocks near hot springs or volcanic centers. Mercury 

may be recovered as a byproduct of processing copper, gold, 

lead-zinc, or silver ores. 

Since 1927, in conformance with the system used at 

Almaden, the “flask” has been the unique unit for measuring 

and pricing mercury. One flask weighs 34.5 kilograms, and 

1 metric ton (t) of mercury contains approximately 29 flasks 

(Meyers, 1951). The flask itself is a screw-top, welded-steel 

container that is approximately the size of a 2-liter bottle.

During the first half of the 1900s, the price of mercury 

increased significantly during periods of increased demand, 

namely, World War I, World War II, and a period in the late 

1920s when prices were established and maintained by the 

Spanish-Italian mercury cartel—Mercurio Europeo (Pennington, 1959, p. 47) (table 1). In the 1950s, 10,900 t of mercury 

was used at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tenn., for production of the hydrogen bomb. Following World War II until 

about 1965, the price was comparatively volatile. This was the 

result of the erratic demand for mercury during this period and 

frequent overproduction. In the early 1970s, the average price 

began to decline (fig. 1).

In 1992, the last mine that produced mercury as a primary 

mineral commodity in the United States closed. However, 

domestic mercury production included mercury that was 

produced as a byproduct from domestic and foreign precious 

metals mines and mercury that was recovered from recycled 

mercury-containing scrap. Mercury was widely used in the 

production of chlorine and caustic soda and for small-scale 

gold mining in many parts of the world (Fialka, 2006; Brooks 

and others, 2007). In 2003, the mercury price was $170 per 

flask; however, in 2004, the gold price increased to more 

than $400 per troy ounce and the price of mercury more than 

doubled to $400 per flask as mercury use for small-scale gold 

mining increased. This trend continued into 2010 as the average gold price increased to more than $1,200 per troy ounce, 

and the price for mercury increased to $900 per flask because 

of its widespread use in small-scale gold mining.

Growing awareness of health and environmental problems associated with mercury has resulted in numerous regulations restricting or eliminating mercury use in various applications, and governing its ultimate disposal. These regulations 

have the combined effect of lowering consumption, with the 

exception of mercury used for small-scale gold mining, while 

at the same time restricting the availability of mercury from 

byproduct sources and decommissioned chlorine and caustic 

soda plants.

The Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–

414) prohibited the sale and transfer of elemental mercury 

after January 1, 2013, and addressed the long-term storage of 

elemental mercury. In anticipation of these restrictions on mercury exports and the increased price of gold, the average price 

of mercury had increased to $1,950 per flask at yearend 2010.

References Cited

Barnes, J.W., and Bailey, E.H., 1972, Turkey’s major mercury 

mine today and how it was mined 8000 years ago: World 

Mining, v. 25, no. 4, p. 49–55.

Brooks, W.E., Sandoval, E., Yepez, M.A., and Howard, H., 

2007, Peru mercury inventory 2006: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007–1252, 55 p., available at http://

pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1252/.

Fialka, J.J., 2006, How mercury rules designed for safety end 

up polluting: Wall Street Journal, April 20, p. A1, A10.

Meyers, D.K., 1951, History of the mercury flask: Journal of 

Chemical Education, v. 28, March 22, p. 127.

Pennington, J.W., 1959, Mercury—A materials survey: U.S. 

Bureau of Mines Information Circular 7941, 92 p.
Mercury (Hg) 99

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Dollars per flask

Year

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION

Figure 1. Annual average U.S. mercury price.

Significant events affecting mercury prices since 1970

1971 Mercury declared a hazardous air pollutant by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

2004 Gold price increased to more than $400 per troy ounce

2008 Mercury Export Ban Act signed into law
100 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

Table 1. Annual average U.S. mercury price.

[Values in dollars per flask]

Year Price

1899 43.63

1900 51.00

1901 47.00

1902 48.03

1903 41.32

1904 41.00

1905 38.50

1906 40.90

1907 41.50

1908 44.84

1909 46.30

1910 47.06

1911 46.54

1912 42.46

1913 39.54

1914 48.31

1915 87.01

1916 125.49

1917 106.30

1918 123.47

1919 92.15

1920 81.12

1921 45.46

1922 58.95

1923 66.50

1924 69.76

1925 83.13

1926 91.90

Year Price

1927 118.16

1928 123.51

1929 122.15

1930 115.01

1931 87.35

1932 57.93

1933 59.23

1934 73.87

1935 71.99

1936 79.92

1937 90.18

1938 75.47

1939 103.94

1940 176.86

1941 185.02

1942 196.35

1943 195.21

1944 118.36

1945 134.89

1946 98.24

1947 83.74

1948 76.49

1949 79.46

1950 81.26

1951 210.13

1952 199.10

1953 193.03

1954 264.39

Year Price

1955 290.35

1956 259.92

1957 246.98

1958 229.06

1959 227.48

1960 210.76

1961 197.61

1962 191.21

1963 189.45

1964 314.79

1965 570.75

1966 441.72

1967 489.36

1968 535.56

1969 505.04

1970 407.77

1971 292.41

1972 218.28

1973 286.23

1974 281.69

1975 158.12

1976 121.30

1977 135.71

1978 153.32

1979 281.10

1980 389.45

1981 413.86

1982 370.93

Year Price

1983 322.44

1984 314.38

1985 310.96

1986 232.79

1987 295.50

1988 335.52

1989 287.72

1990 249.22

1991 122.42

1992 201.39

1993 187.00

1994 194.45

1995 247.39

1996 261.61

1997 159.52

1998 139.84

1999 140.00

2000 155.00

2001 155.00

2002 155.00

2003 170.00

2004 400.00

2005 775.00

2006 670.00

2007 530.00

2008 732.00

2009 753.00

2010 900.00

Notes:

1899–1986, 76-pound flasks, in Engineering and Mining Journal.

1987–93, 76-pound flasks, 99.99-percent-pure mercury, in Metals Week.

1993–2010, 76-pound flasks, 99.99-percent-pure mercury, in Platts (Platt’s) Metals Week.
Molybdenum (Mo) 101

Molybdenum (Mo)

by Désirée E. Polyak

From the period of the Greek and Roman civilizations to 

the late 18th century, such terms as “molybdos” or “molybdaena” were applied to minerals that were soft and “leadlike” 

in character; these minerals probably included those now 

known as galena, graphite, and molybdenite. This confusion was resolved in 1778 when the Swedish chemist, Karl 

Scheele, demonstrated that molybdenite, the principal molybdenum mineral, was a discrete mineral sulfide. Four years 

later, P.J. Hjelm of Sweden reduced the acid-forming oxide 

of the metal by heating it with charcoal, thereby producing an 

impure powder of the metal, which he named “molybdenum.” 

Various properties of the element and its compounds were 

determined during the 19th century, and in 1893, German 

chemists produced a 96-percent-pure metal by reducing calcium molybdate. About this time, impure metal was reported 

to have been used experimentally as a substitute for tungsten 

in tool steels (Sutulov, 1965, p. 13–16). Molybdenum-bearing 

armorplate was produced in France in 1894; this was the first 

recorded use of the metal as an alloying element in steel. Soon 

thereafter, Henri Mossiam, a French chemist, succeeded in 

producing a 99.9-percent-pure metal by reduction of molybdenum in an electric furnace. Mossiam then conducted studies 

to establish the element’s atomic weight and to determine its 

physical and chemical properties. These studies stimulated 

interest in the metal and its compounds and investigations of 

commercial applications (Schneider, 1963). 

It was in 1916 during World War I, when a German 

company (the American Metal Company) with American 

headquarters in New York became very interested in the 

molybdenum deposits in Colorado, specifically the Climax 

molybdenum deposit. The company quickly expanded with 

increasing molybdenum demand and Climax Molybdenum 

Company was formed. When World War I ended in November 

1918, the demand and the price of molybdenum dramatically 

decreased (table 1) Intense research efforts began to develop 

new civilian applications for molybdenum, and a number of 

new low-alloy molybdenum automotive steels were tested and 

accepted. The industry slowly recovered during the 1920s and 

1930s. World War II and the Korean War fostered new uses 

for molybdenum in fertilizers, high-temperature alloy steel 

for jet engines, and pigments. Molybdenum production during 

the war years, as well as the following Cold War years, was 

deemed a high priority by the U.S. Government (Colorado 

Geological Survey, 2001, p. 5–6).

By the end of the 1930s, molybdenum had been accepted 

as an important technical material. The end of World War 

II, in 1945, once again brought increased research investment to develop new civilian applications, and the post-war 

reconstruction provided additional markets for molybdenumcontaining structural steels (International Molybdenum 

Association, undated).

The period from 1959 to 1970 resulted in steadily, but 

only slightly, increasing prices. The 1970 price of molybdenum was about 35 percent more than the 1959 price; the 

constant dollar price remained nearly unchanged. Throughout 

the early 1970s, consumption of molybdenum consistently 

exceeded production. Much of the extra demand, however, 

was absorbed by periodic releases from the U.S. Government 

stockpile. These releases had a price-dampening effect. When 

the stockpile was depleted in 1977, the price damper was 

removed. Prices began to increase, and almost every copper mining company in the world was operating or building 

byproduct molybdenum recovery mill circuits (fig. 1). Steelmakers began to seek cheaper, alternative alloying metals, 

such as vanadium. The annual average price of molybdenum 

in 1977 was $10.70 per kilogram. By 1979, the annual average 

price of molybdenum was $51.00 per kilogram. The Iranian 

Revolution created renewed energy concerns, with subsequent 

strong demand for high molybdenum oilfield steel. However, 

by the end of 1980 and early 1981, the soaring oil prices 

collapsed, drastically decreasing demand for molybdenum. 

Byproduct molybdenum production continued, especially 

from Third World copper mines. At the same time, automotive 

and general manufacturing slowed with the growing economic 

recession. The price of molybdenum dramatically decreased. 

The annual average price of molybdenum in 1982 was $9.00.

Prices continued to decrease through 1986 but then 

slowly increased for 2 years. Between 1992 and 1995, just 

after the Persian Gulf War, the dissolution of the Soviet Union, 

and a recession, prices increased yearly. At the beginning of 

1995, molybdenum prices were at their highest level in 15 

years ($17.40 per kilogram) owing to a supply shortage. Many 

companies restarted their byproduct molybdenum circuits or 

boosted production at their current projects. The price increase 

was short lived as the annual price of molybdenum in 1996 

was $8.30 per kilogram.

After the price spike in 1995, the molybdenum market 

was severely affected by overproduction for the next several 

years. In 1997, production cutbacks were made by some 

primary operations, but these were largely cancelled out by 

increased byproduct molybdenum output from established and 

new copper operations in Armenia, Chile, Peru, and Russia 

(Roskill Information Services Ltd., 2003, p. 1). When the dramatically increasing molybdenum prices occurred in 1979–80 

or during profitable peak periods in 1994–95, primary molybdenum companies that rushed to reopen found themselves 
102 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

priced out of the market because of high production costs, and 

only the low-cost primary copper companies succeeded in 

making a profit on byproduct molybdenum. 

In 2002, molybdenum prices began to increase owing 

to a decline in the copper market in 2001. Many byproduct 

producers in Chile, Mexico, and the United States were forced 

to decrease production, which in turn decreased molybdenum supply. Antidumping duties were also imposed by the 

European Union on Chinese ferromolybdenum, which further 

decreased molybdenum supply (Roskill Information Services 

Ltd., 2003, p. 1). As a result, molybdenum prices increased 

sharply in mid-2002. This price spike, however, was short 

lived as the copper market rebounded. 

In the first quarter of 2004, molybdenum prices rose 

rapidly in response to limited world capacity for roasting of 

molybdenum concentrates and growing global demand. By 

mid-2005, molybdenum prices had peaked at record-breaking 

levels and began to slowly decrease with improved supply. Prices remained well above their historic average until 

November 2008 when prices dramatically dropped owing to 

the global financial crisis. Prices stabilized in late 2009 and 

recovered in 2010 as growth continued in China and other 

emerging markets, although prices did not reach their previous 

highs.

References Cited

Colorado Geological Survey, 2001, Rock talk: Colorado 

Geological Survey, v. 4, no. 3, July, 12 p.

International Molybdenum Association, undated, Molybdenum history: London, United Kingdom, International 

Molybdenum Association, 2 p.

Roskill Information Services Ltd., 2003, The economics of 

molybdenum (8th ed.): London, United Kingdom, Roskill 

Information Services Ltd., 316 p.

Schneider, V.B., 1963, Molybdenum: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, Mineral 

Report 6, 4 p. 

Sutulov, Alexander, 1965, [Molybdenum extractive metallurgy]: Concepción, Chile, University of Concepción, 239 p.
Molybdenum (Mo) 103

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Dollars per kilogram, molybdenum content

Year

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION

Figure 1. Annual average molybdenum concentrate price.

Significant events affecting molybdenum prices since 1970

1971–74 Price controls imposed by the U.S. Government, including metal products

1977 U.S. Government release of molybdenum from stockpiles ceased

1978–79 High demand owing to generally strong economic conditions and Iranian Revolution caused copper companies to 

start operating or building byproduct molybdenum recovery circuits

1981–82 Molybdenum demand decreased owing to recession and overproduction

1994–95 Anticipation of supply shortfall 

2002–07 Molybdenum mine production moved strongly upwards in response to greater demand from the iron and steel 

industry

2008–09 Global financial crisis; prices declined; and many new mining projects were slowed or suspended
104 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

Table 1. Annual average molybdenum concentrate price.

[Values in dollars per kilogram molybdenum content]

Year Price

1912 0.45

1913 0.67

1914 2.24

1915 2.24

1916 2.24

1917 3.16

1918 3.27

1919 2.58

1920 1.12

1921 1.57

1922 0.49

1923 1.70

1924 2.02

1925 0.90

1926 1.57

1927 1.70

1928 2.24

1929 1.12

1930 1.23

1931 0.94

1932 1.12

1933 1.68

1934 1.57

1935 1.57

1936 1.48

Year Price

1937 1.52

1938 1.57

1939 1.52

1940 1.55

1941 1.52

1942 1.59

1943 1.59

1944 1.59

1945 1.59

1946 1.52

1947 1.52

1948 1.55

1949 1.86

1950 1.90

1951 2.13

1952 2.15

1953 2.17

1954 2.24

1955 2.31

1956 2.51

1957 2.64

1958 2.67

1959 2.80

1960 2.80

1961 2.90

Year Price

1962 3.00

1963 3.00

1964 3.30

1965 3.50

1966 3.50

1967 3.60

1968 3.60

1969 3.70

1970 3.80

1971 4.01

1972 3.91

1973 3.87

1974 4.68

1975 6.25

1976 7.17

1977 10.72

1978 20.25

1979 50.97

1980 20.69

1981 14.09

1982 9.02

1983 8.05

1984 7.85

1985 7.16

1986 6.32

Year Price

1987 6.40

1988 7.60

1989 7.42

1990 6.29

1991 5.25

1992 4.86

1993 5.16

1994 10.47

1995 17.35

1996 8.34

1997 9.47

1998 7.50

1999 5.85

2000 5.63

2001 5.19

2002 8.28

2003 11.76

2004 36.76

2005 70.10

2006 54.62

2007 66.79

2008 62.99

2009 25.84

2010 34.83

Notes:

1912–55, prices were published by the U.S. Bureau of Mines, but origin is undetermined. 

1956–66, prices were published in Engineering and Mining Journal, Metal and Mineral Markets.

1967–92, prices were published in Metals Week.

1993–2010, prices were published in Platt’s Metals Week. 
Nickel (Ni) 105

Nickel (Ni)

by Peter H. Kuck

During the 17th century, German miners had difficulty 

processing certain copper sulfide ores because of an associated 

mineral that they called kupfernickel, or “Old Nick’s copper.” 

The troublesome mineral turned out to be nickel arsenide and 

is known today as “niccolite” or “nickeline.” In 1751, Axel 

Fredrik Cronstedt isolated a previously unknown chemical 

element from niccolite. This element was subsequently named 

“nickel.” Nickel was mined on only a limited scale until the 

large lateritic nickel deposits in New Caledonia came into production about 1875 (Boldt and Queneau, 1967, p. 61–65). The 

first nickel operations processed sulfide ores—primarily in 

Canada, Central Europe, China, Pennsylvania, and Scandinavia. Nickel had little economic or industrial significance until 

1820 when Michael Faraday succeeded in making synthetic 

meteoric iron by adding nickel to pure iron. Faraday’s alloy 

was the forerunner of nickel steel, a family of ferrous alloys 

that continues to play an important role in industrial development. One of the first uses of nickel steel was for ordnance. 

Nickel-steel armor plate was first produced commercially in 

France in 1885 (Hall, 1954, p. 1–3, 17). Competitiveness trials 

of nickel-steel armor took place in the United States in 1890–

91, and within a few years, Bethlehem Iron Co. (forerunner 

of Bethlehem Steel Corp.) was producing large nickel-steel 

guns for the U.S. military (Wharton, 1897). The nickel steels 

developed before World War I contained only 1.5 percent to 

4.5 percent nickel, with a carbon content from 0.2 percent to 

0.5 percent (Hess, 1917, p. 761–762). Other important early 

uses were bridge structures, railroad rails, axles, ship propeller 

shafts, and automobile engine parts (Cammen, 1928, p. 142–

156). The first commercial chromium-nickel steel—and one of 

the first grades of stainless steel—was made at St. Chamond, 

France, in 1891. Like nickel-steel armor, chromium-nickelsteel armor proved to be much superior to the carbon-steel 

plate then in use, triggering extensive production of the new 

type of steel (Hall, 1954, p. 17–44).

In 2010, stainless steel production accounted for more 

than 60 percent of world nickel consumption and was the 

primary factor in nickel pricing. Stainless steel is defined as 

an iron alloy that contains at least 10.5 percent chromium. 

Nickel-bearing stainless steels are termed “austenitic,” a 

reference to their characteristic solid solution microstructure, and typically contain between 6 percent and 22 percent 

nickel—with 18 percent chromium and 8 percent nickel being 

the most common composition. The nickel changes the crystal 

structure of stainless steel from body-centered cubic (ferritic) 

to face-centered cubic (austenitic) (International Molybdenum 

Association, 2009, p. 8–9). Austenitic stainless steels are often 

used where corrosion resistance and toughness are of primary 

concern (All Metals & Forge Group, undated).

In the Western World, total stainless steel production has 

grown at about 4.8 percent per year since 1950 (Vale, S.A., 

2010b, p. 3–7). Since 2007, the austenitic share of global 

stainless steel production has accounted for between 71 

percent and 75 percent of total stainless output, the rest being 

ferritic or martensitic (a stainless steel with a body-centered 

tetragonal structure created by quenching austenitic grades). 

In recent years, the austenitic percentage of stainless steel production for the United States has ranged from 63 percent to 71 

percent. U.S. steel plants produce significant amounts of ferritic stainless—most of the balance—for the North American 

automotive industry. Since 1970, demand for stainless steel in 

the United States has grown at a much faster rate than that of 

carbon steel but still constitutes only about 4 percent of total 

U.S. raw steel production.

The market for duplex stainless steels has grown significantly since the development of the argon oxygen decarburization (AOD) refining process in 1968. Duplex stainless 

steels have a two-phase microstructure composed of grains of 

ferritic and austenitic stainless steel. Duplex stainless steels, 

first produced in 1930, have roughly twice the strength of 

standard austenitic stainless steels but contain less nickel and 

are less expensive than many austenitic grades (International 

Molybdenum Association, 2009, p. 4–7).

Like petroleum, nickel is a critical commodity in wartime. Nickel, as well as cobalt, is needed to make superalloys 

for engines that propel jet aircraft, guided missiles, and some 

space vehicles. Pure nickel is used in high-performance batteries, such as those that start jet engines or power satellites. 

Austenitic stainless steel and nickel-based high-performance 

alloys are commonly used if chemical corrosion is a serious 

problem, such as on submarines and surface naval vessels or 

at food-processing or petroleum-storage facilities. Merchant 

nickel prices traditionally spike in wartime when demand far 

exceeds supply and frequently rise in times of political unrest 

and instability. Producer prices, in contrast, have been frozen 

during several crises by war-production boards or emergency 

price-control regulations.

The Korean Conflict is a good illustration of price spiking 

and distribution controls. During the transition from a civilian 

to a defense economy, demand for nickel exceeded available 

supply even though North American nickel mines and plants 

were operating at full capacity. At the outset of the conflict, 

the U.S. Government took control of the distribution of nickel, 

and from 1951 to 1957, all nickel in the United States was 

under Government allocation. At the same time, the Govern-
106 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

ment also acquired nickel for the national strategic stockpile. 

The combination of these actions resulted in a severe shortage of nickel for nondefense uses (Davis, 1956, p. 837–838, 

841). Shortages continued throughout the conflict despite the 

addition of significant new production capacity in Canada and 

the United States and the rehabilitation of a number of older 

mines and plants. Moreover, the U.S. Government continued 

to purchase nickel for the strategic stockpile after the conflict 

ended. As a result, supply did not exceed civilian demand 

until the latter part of 1957, 4 years after the armistice. The 

producer price of nickel—tracking consumption—began a 

gradual rise in 1950 and did not peak until 1957 (table 1). A 

period of oversupply followed, during which quoted producer 

and merchant prices for nickel approximately paralleled inflation. This situation produced a constant dollar price for the 

metal that was fairly stable for more than 10 years.

In 1969, the Canadian nickel, copper, and iron ore industries were shut down by a prolonged series of labor strikes. 

Canada was the dominant nickel-producing country in the 

world at the time. Canada’s two largest producers, Inco Ltd. 

and Falconbridge Ltd., accounted for 48 percent of world 

production the previous year. Because of the strikes, Canadian 

nickel production was almost 20 percent less than that of 1968 

(Morrell, 1971, p. 175–176). The strikes took place at a point 

in time when global stocks were low and world demand was 

restricted by available supply.

The 1969 strikes affected nickel prices in two ways. 

Before the strikes, the major producers, led by the Canadians, controlled the nickel price. The short-term effect was a 

brief price increase. The long-term effect was to diminish the 

importance of the producer price. Canadian and non-Canadian 

producers accelerated efforts to expand existing operations and 

to bring greenfield projects onstream before prices weakened. 

Between 1969 and 1974, new mines and processing plants 

were commissioned in Australia, Canada, the Dominican 

Republic, and New Caledonia. The increased capacity resulted 

in a reduction of the Canadians’ share of the world market and, 

thus, their influence on prices—a turning point in the history 

of nickel marketing.

Between 1966 and 1973, more than 40 deposits of massive nickel sulfides were discovered in Western Australia. 

Western Mining Corporation Ltd. (now part of the BHP Billiton Group) successfully delineated several deposits around the 

Kambalda Dome and sharply expanded its mining operations 

in the Kalgoorlie region in the mid-1970s (Hoatson, Jaireth, 

and Jaques, 2006, p. 179–187, 234–235). In 2010, Australia 

was the fourth largest producer of marketable primary nickel 

in the world because of additional discoveries in Western 

Australia, the subsequent construction of a major natural gas 

pipeline from the North West Shelf to Kalgoorlie, and the 

advent of new extraction technologies.

Nickel prices, reflecting consumption, rose slightly 

from 1970 until 1975, when the cumulative effect of opening 

several new production facilities began to be felt (fig. 1). In 

1975, U.S. demand for nickel weakened, partially because of 

the termination of U.S.-led military operations in Vietnam. In 

1977, P.T. Inco commissioned its Soroako mining and smelting complex on the Indonesian island of Sulawesi, bringing 

additional metal to the marketplace. An oversupply situation 

and declining consumption caused prices to remain flat until 

the Inco strike of 1978–79. The strike at Inco’s operations in 

the Sudbury District lasted from September 16, 1978, to June 

3, 1979 (Inco Ltd., 1980, p. 4–9). Between February 1979 

and the end of the year, Inco raised its Port Colborne price for 

nickel cathode six times. The effect of the Inco strike on prices 

was compounded by the fact that major producers had been 

operating at 55 to 60 percent of capacity to reduce inventories 

and to improve the price situation.

The Inco strike helped accelerate major changes in nickel 

pricing. On April 23, 1979, nickel contracts were introduced 

for the first time on the LME. Nickel became the seventh 

metal traded on the LME—marking a major turning point in 

pricing of the metal. Leading nickel producers at first opposed 

the LME pricing mechanism. Nickel business on the LME, 

however, grew steadily in spite of the producers’ opposition, 

convincing the producers to reverse their position. Today, 

nickel prices are set by the LME rather than by the producers. Since 1979, nickel has become a commodity whose price 

is driven by world supply and demand, irrespective of production costs. Many consumers, as well as producers, were 

initially opposed to LME trading. Most, however, would now 

agree that the LME is a practical and effective forum for establishing an international reference price for nickel, improving 

price transparency, and rapidly disseminating price data. It 

is difficult to say how much nickel, probably a small proportion, actually sells at the LME price. The LME price has more 

importance than appears at first glance because it is used as a 

reference price in long-term contracts. For example, a large 

nickel producer might ask for a premium to the LME price, 

and a smaller one might sell at a discount. Because of the 

LME, producer prices became irrelevant in the early 1980s.

The second oil crisis (1979–82), triggered by the revolution in Iran, had a major dampening effect on world consumption of steel and most metals. The resulting recession that 

began in summer 1981 caused a marked decline in nickel 

consumption. Nickel demand in the Western World declined 

about 8 percent in 1981; this was the first time since the late 

1940s that demand had declined for 2 consecutive years. The 

recession ended in November 1982, but prices continued to 

weaken until 1985 because of slackening demand. In 1987, 

the market suddenly changed direction, catching producers off 

guard. The annual average price surged from its lowest level 

ever in 1986 to its highest in 1988 (in terms of 1992 constant 

dollars for 1910–97) (fig. 1).

The monthly average LME cash price rose gradually 

from $1.60 per pound at the beginning of 1987 to $2.69 in 

November. In December 1987, it suddenly shot up to $3.48. 

The rapid increase continued in 1988, with the monthly price 

reaching $8.17 in April. These price levels would have been 

unimaginable to the nickel market 4 years earlier. Three factors were primarily responsible for the increase. The first was 

a substantial and unforeseen increase in demand for stainless 
Nickel (Ni) 107

steel, the largest end use for nickel. More than 50 percent of 

stainless steel production in the United States and Europe is 

sold through service centers (companies that buy directly from 

a stainless mill and sell to customers). Service centers do not 

publish detailed sales statistics in terms of end use, making 

it difficult for stainless producers to monitor consumption 

of their product. The second factor was that nickel producers reduced world production capacity because of low metal 

prices during the early and mid-1980s. At least five nickel 

producers closed operations during this period. A third factor 

was the decreased availability of stainless steel scrap.

Although Western demand for nickel grew continuously 

between 1985 and 1991, the LME price peaked in 1988 and 

declined each year afterward until 1994. The reasons for this 

paradoxical trend were threefold—the former Soviet Union 

(FSU) began gradually increasing nickel shipments to the 

West, scrap availability increased worldwide, and world production of primary nickel increased.

The breakup of the Soviet Union in December 1991 produced massive changes in the Russian economy, one of which 

was the partial privatization of the largest nickel producer in 

the country, RAO Norilsk Nickel. At the same time, the downsizing of the FSU military-industrial complex caused nickel 

consumption within Russia to plummet. In 1997, Russia consumed only 20,000 metric tons (t) of primary nickel, compared 

with 180,000 t in 1989 (International Nickel Study Group, 

1998). Russian consumption weakened even more in 1998, 

slipping to less than 18,000 t. These changes led to a surge of 

primary nickel exports from Russia, putting downward pressure on world prices for primary nickel and nickel-bearing 

scrap. Russian exports of stainless steel scrap and high-nickel 

scrap to the European Union (EU) also sharply increased, 

further depressing world nickel prices. More than a decade 

later, Russia is still the leading nickel-producing country in the 

world and reportedly has significant undeveloped resources 

in its Siberian and Far Eastern regions. In 2010, more than 85 

percent of Russia’s output came from mines operated in the 

Arctic by Norilsk Nickel.

Reduced nickel consumption in Russia, a recession in 

Japan, and economic problems in other parts of East Asia 

caused the monthly LME cash price to decline from $3.20 

per pound in June 1997 to $1.76 in December 1998. Between 

1997 and 1999, Western nickel producers had to struggle to 

cut costs in the face of weakening prices for the metal. Prices 

began improving in the first half of 1999, climbing back to the 

$2.25 to $2.50 level. The commissioning of three nickel mining and metallurgical complexes in Western Australia at the 

beginning of 1999, however, put renewed downward pressure 

on prices. The three complexes used variations of a pressure 

acid leach (PAL) process to extract nickel and cobalt from 

limonitic laterite ores. All three operations—Bulong, Cawse, 

and Murrin Murrin—experienced startup problems associated 

with the new PAL technology. The Murrin Murrin joint venture was able to overcome the bulk of these problems and was 

still operating in early 2011. Production at Bulong and Cawse, 

however, was eventually suspended because of deteriorating 

nickel prices.

From 2001 to 2005, global nickel consumption grew an 

average of 3.4 percent per year. This growth was largely fueled 

by increased use of stainless steel worldwide and the rapidly 

expanding economy in China. In January 2006, the monthly 

average LME cash price was $6.60 per pound—a relatively 

high price in historical terms. In the summer of 2006, increasing global production of stainless steel, especially in China, 

created a temporary nickel supply deficit, driving the monthly 

LME cash price to an alltime high of $23.66 per pound in May 

2007. At this point, demand for stainless steel began to falter 

in many countries, with the exception of China, triggering a 

gradual price collapse. In the fourth quarter of 2008, the global 

economy began to soften. The December 2008 average LME 

cash price was only $4.39 per pound. 

In August 2005, Inco Ltd. began mining its world-class 

Voisey’s Bay nickel-copper-cobalt deposit in northeastern 

Labrador (McCutcheon, 2006, p. 38.11–38.12). The development of the deposit has had a major impact on the world nickel 

market because of the deposit’s large reserves, the richness of 

its ores, and its coastal location on the North Atlantic. In 2009, 

Vale S.A.—Inco’s successor—began construction of a $2.8 

billion hydrometallurgical complex at Long Harbour, Newfoundland, that was designed to process the concentrates from 

Voisey’s Bay and significantly reduce transportation costs for 

the company (Baird, 2011; Vale S.A., 2010a).

The technology of laterite ore processing has advanced 

significantly since construction began at Murrin Murrin in 

1997. Three hydrometallurgical processing complexes were 

being readied for commissioning in 2010—one on the main 

island of New Caledonia, one in Madagascar, and one in 

Papua New Guinea. In 2008, a ferronickel smelter was commissioned in the Republic of Korea. Two ferronickel smelters 

were also commissioned in Brazil at yearend 2010, and a third 

was under construction in New Caledonia. All seven facilities 

were designed to process laterite ores. The creation of 337,000 

metric tons per year (t/yr) of new production capacity came 

at a time when the world was struggling to recover from the 

global recession of 2008–09.

By March 2009, stocks in LME warehouses had climbed 

above 100,000 t for the first time in history and were still 

growing. Fortunately for the producers, stainless steel production in China was at an alltime high. LME stocks eventually 

peaked at 136,000 t in December 2010 and began to slowly 

shrink as the recession waned and demand for stainless steel 

began to recover (International Nickel Study Group, 2011). 

Pricing Mechanisms for Nickel Metal

The principal purpose of the LME since its opening in 

1877 has been to serve as a futures market, providing protection to producers, traders, and consumers against unpredictable price fluctuations (Rudolf Wolff & Co. Ltd., 1995). The 

LME has a membership of more than 90 firms. Of these, 12 
108 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

take part in ring dealing, which consists of open outcry trading sessions that take place twice a day. Unlike other futures 

markets, the LME also serves as a center for physical trading 

and has an international network of approved warehouses. In 

the case of nickel, the bulk of the warehousing is at Rotterdam 

in the Netherlands and to a lesser degree in Singapore.

Producer participation in the LME has increased considerably since 1985 because of the LME’s hedging and options 

capabilities. In 2010, LME prices were the principal pricing 

mechanism used worldwide by producers and consumers of 

nickel. LME prices and archival statistics are available 24 

hours a day at the LME Web site, thus minimizing arbitrage. 

LME prices are also quoted by day in a variety of weekly trade 

publications. In 2010, the LME pricing system had the support 

of seven of the leading nickel producers in the world. Three of 

the seven had subsidiaries who were Associate Trade Members 

of the Exchange—BHP Billiton Group, Vale S.A., and Xstrata 

plc (through its principal shareholder, Glencore International 

AG). The LME is regulated by the Financial Services Authority, an independent nongovernmental body given statutory 

powers by the British Parliament.

Hedging, a form of insurance available to consumers, 

producers, and traders, is a key component of the futures 

market and reduces a producer’s exposure to price changes 

while the raw nickel is moving through different processing 

stages at the producer’s facilities. To guard against sudden 

price movements, the producer will hedge a planned physical 

transaction by entering into an offsetting forward contract on 

the LME. Speculators play an important role in futures trading 

because they bring liquidity to the market and assume the risk 

that the hedger is trying to avoid. Five different price series for 

nickel are available from the LME:

• Cash

• Settlement

• 3-month futures

• 15-month futures

• 27-month futures.

The data shown in the accompanying table since 1979 

represent the annual average cash price.

Pricing Mechanisms for Stainless Steel Scrap

Nickel is less abundant than either chromium or iron in 

the Earth’s crust because of nickel’s higher atomic number and 

differences in the nuclear stability of the respective isotopes 

of the three elements. As a result, on an elemental basis, 

ferronickel is about 5 to 9 times more expensive than ferrochromium and 30 to 50 times more expensive than pig iron, 

depending upon the market situation at the time. As a rule of 

thumb, austenitic (chromium and nickel) stainless steel scrap 

is roughly three times more valuable than ferritic (chromium 

only) stainless steel scrap. Because the highest value material 

in austenitic stainless steel is nickel, austenitic scrap prices 

for Types 304 and 316 closely track those of nickel cathode 

except when ferrochromium is in short supply (fig. 2).

Almost all stainless steel produced in the United States 

is made in electric-arc furnaces. Nickel-based superalloys and 

other nickel-chromium alloys also are commonly made in 

electric-arc furnaces. The characteristics of the electric furnace 

permit the operator to use a large percentage of scrap, economizing by reducing the consumption of virgin chromium and 

nickel. Some of the more critical nickel-based superalloys, 

however, are produced in vacuum-induction furnaces and later 

refined in consumable melting furnaces.

The stainless steel scrap prices shown in the accompanying table were derived from daily data published by American 

Metal Market (AMM) (table 2). The data represent consumer 

buying prices in the Pittsburgh, Pa., area for austenitic stainless steel scrap and are quoted in dollars per long ton gross 

weight. The scrap is in the form of bundles, solids, and clippings typically containing 18 percent chromium and 8 percent 

nickel. Turnings of 18-8 alloy are more difficult to handle than 

bundles and fetch only about 85 percent of the bundle price. 

AMM also publishes estimated prices that a dealer, broker, 

or processor would pay for 18-8 scrap delivered to yards in 

10 different areas of the United States plus the Montreal area 

of Canada. On November 1, 2006, AMM revised its pricing 

methodology and began reporting prices for Type 316 solids 

and clips. At the same time, AMM dropped its listing for 18/8 

bundles, solids and clips and replaced it with one tracking 

Type 304 solids and clips, effectively creating two new price 

series. Type 316 scrap contains from 10 percent to 14 percent 

nickel, compared with 8.0 percent to 10.5 percent nickel for 

Type 304 (table 2). 

Although many types of nickel scrap are recycled in 

the United States, most is in the form of stainless steel. In 

2010, stainless steel scrap accounted for about 85 percent of 

reclaimed nickel in the country. This included scrap consumed 

in foundries in addition to that used in raw steelmaking. Scrap 

accounts for as much as 80 percent of total feed materials at 

some European stainless steel production facilities but typically from 60 percent to 70 percent in the United States—the 

remainder being ferroalloys or virgin metals. The bulk of the 

scrap is conventional austenitic or ferritic stainless steel. The 

scrap is often blended and may include lesser amounts of 

low-alloy steel, superalloys and other high-nickel-chromium 

alloys, and (or) specially processed fines of high-carbon ferrochromium. A high scrap ratio (that is, a high percentage of 

scrap in the total charge) reduces melting time and electricity 

consumption but makes final chemical adjustments to the melt 

more difficult. In past years, a few foreign mills have had to 

drop their scrap ratio to 30 percent or 40 percent because of 

problems in purchasing quality scrap at a reasonable price.
Nickel (Ni) 109

Pricing for Nickel-Based Nonferrous Scrap

Copper-nickel and superalloy scrap make up a large 

portion of the remaining 15 percent of nickel reclaimed in 

the United States. Published price series exist for at least four 

different types of nickel-based nonferrous scrap. Monthly 

prices for clips and solids of new scrap are readily available, 

especially for nickel metal, Monel® (a family of copper-nickel 

alloys), and Inconel® (a family of nickel-chromium-iron 

superalloys).

References Cited

All Metals & Forge Group, [undated], Stainless steel, accessed 

September 21, 2011, at http://www.steelforge.com/ferrous/

stainlesssteel.htm.

Baird, Moira, 2011, G.J. Cahill and Kiewit hooking up Long 

Harbour nickel plant modules: St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada, 1 p., accessed September 21, 2011, via 

http://www.thetelegram.com.

Boldt, J.R., Jr., and Queneau, Paul, 1967, The winning of 

nickel: Princeton, N.J., D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., 487 p.

Cammen, Leon, 1928, Alloy steels, chap. 6 of Principles of 

metallurgy of ferrous metals: New York, N.Y., American 

Society of Mechanical Engineers, p. 142–162.

Davis, H.W., 1956, Nickel, in Metals and minerals: U.S. 

Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook 1953, v. I, p. 837–853.

Hall, A.M., 1954, Nickel in iron and steel: New York, John 

Wiley & Sons, Inc., 595 p.

Hess, F.L., 1917, Nickel, in Mineral resources of the United 

States 1915: U.S. Geological Survey, pt. 1, p. 743–766.

Hoatson, D.M., Jaireth, S., and Jaques, A.L., 2006, Nickel 

sulfide deposits in Australia—Characteristics, resources, 

and potential: Ore Geology Reviews, v. 29, p. 177–241.

Inco Ltd., 1980, Annual report—1979: Toronto, Ontario, 

Canada, Inco Ltd., 41 p.

International Molybdenum Association, 2009, Practical guidelines for the fabrication of duplex stainless steels: London, 

United Kingdom, International Molybdenum Association 

(2d ed.), 63 p.

International Nickel Study Group, 1998, World nickel statistics: The Hague, Netherlands, International Nickel Study 

Group, v. 8, no. 11, November, p. 64–66.

International Nickel Study Group, 2011, World nickel statistics—Yearbook: Lisbon, Portugal, International Nickel 

Study Group, v. 20, no. 12, November, 4 sections (A–D).

McCutcheon, Bill, 2006, Nickel, in Canadian Minerals Yearbook—2005: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Natural Resources 

Canada, p. 38.1–38.96.

Morrell, L.G., 1971, The mineral industry of Canada, in Area 

Reports–International: U.S. Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook 1969, v. IV, p. 163–181.

Rudolf Wolff & Co. Ltd., 1995, Nickel, chap. 15 of Wolff’s 

guide to the London Metal Exchange (5th ed.): Surrey, 

United Kingdom, Metal Bulletin Books Ltd., p. 127–133.

Vale S.A., 2010a, Vale—Newfoundland and Labrador: Rio 

de Janiero, Brazil, Vale S.A., 1 p., accessed September 21, 

2011, via http://nickel.vale.com/countries/canada/voisey/.

Vale S.A., 2010b, World stainless steel statistics: Toronto, 

Ontario, Canada, Vale S.A., 19 p. plus country tables.

Wharton, Joseph, 1897, Nickel and cobalt, in Eighteenth 

Annual Report of the United States Geological Survey, 

1896–97: U.S. Geological Survey, pt. 5, p. 329–342.
110 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Dollars per pound

Year

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION

Figure 1. Annual average nickel price.

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009

Dollars per long ton gross weight

Year

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION

Figure 2. Annual average price for stainless steel scrap.
Nickel (Ni) 111

Significant events affecting nickel prices since 1970

1972 Falconbridge Dominicana C. por A. commissioned its ferronickel smelter at Bonao, Dominican Republic

1977 P.T. International Nickel Indonesia (P.T. Inco) commissioned its Soroako mining and smelting complex on the 

Indonesian island of Sulawesi; laterite mining began in Guatemala

1978–79 Labor strike in the Sudbury District of Ontario reduced Canadian mine output by more than 40 percent

1979 Nickel became the seventh metal traded on the London Metal Exchange (LME)

1981–82 A worldwide recession caused nickel demand and prices to fall sharply

1987–88 The Government of the Dominican Republic levied a substantial export duty on ferronickel; Falconbridge 

Dominicana countered by limiting ferronickel shipments and declaring force majeure

1987–89 Supply shortages; stainless steel production in the Western World passed the 10-million-metric-ton-per-year mark

1990 Development of the nickel-metal hydride rechargeable battery

1991 Dissolution of the Soviet Union followed by a sharp rise in exports of Russian nickel

1994 Sherritt Inc. and the Government of Cuba formed a partnership to recover nickel and cobalt from lateritic ores at 

Moa. The two metals were separated and refined in Alberta, Canada

1994–98 RAO Norilsk Nickel was formed after the new Government of Russia partially privatized State-owned mining and 

smelting operations on the Kola and Taimyr Peninsulas

1998–2000 Major restructuring of the specialty steel industry in the United States

2001 BHP Ltd. of Australia and Billiton plc merged, creating a global resources group with interests in nickel and other 

base metals

2005 Inco Ltd. produced its first nickel and copper concentrates at the Voisey's Bay Mine in Labrador

2005–06 Acquisitions and mergers drastically changed corporate ownership of the nickel industry

2006 China became the leading stainless-steel-producing country in the world, passing the European Union. China 

began production of low-grade ferronickel, also known as nickel pig iron

2007 BHP Billiton Group completed construction and commissioning of its Ravensthorpe Mine in Western Australia

2008 Pohang Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. and its partner, Société Minière du Sud Pacifique, S.A., commissioned a worldclass ferronickel smelter at Gwangyang, Republic of Korea. The smelter gives Korean stainless steel producers a 

secure supply of nickel for the first time

2008–09 Global recession leads to a dramatic drop in nickel mine production. China was the leading consumer of primary 

nickel in 2009 and also the leading producer of stainless steel

2010 Vale S.A. commissioned two large mining and processing complexes—one, a hydrometallurgical extraction 

operation on New Caledonia; the other, a ferronickel smelter in the Brazilian State of Para.
112 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

Table 1. Annual average nickel price.

[Values in dollars per pound.]

Year Price

1840 1.70

1841 1.70

1842 2.09

1843 2.40

1844 2.75

1845 3.05

1846 3.05

1847 2.89

1848 2.19

1849 1.93

1850 1.93

1851 1.93

1852 1.93

1853 1.70

1854 1.70

1855 1.57

1856 1.57

1857 1.45

1858 1.20

1859 1.20

1860 1.20

1861 1.20

1862 1.08

1863 1.65

1864 2.29

1865 1.68

1866 1.55

1867 1.52

1868 1.14

1869 1.39

1870 1.28

1871 1.32

1872 2.25

1873 3.84

1874 3.10

1875 2.96

1876 2.52

1877 1.60

1878 0.95

1879 0.89

1880 0.95

1881 0.91

1882 0.99

Year Price

1883 1.11

1884 0.70

1885 0.65

1886 0.48

1887 0.62

1888 0.58

1889 0.65

1890 0.65

1891 0.55

1892 0.75

1893 0.52

1894 0.57

1895 0.30

1896 0.33

1897 0.33

1898 0.33

1899 0.32

1900 0.50

1901 0.56

1902 0.45

1903 0.40

1904 0.40

1905 0.40

1906 0.40

1907 0.45

1908 0.45

1909 0.40

1910 0.40

1911 0.40

1912 0.40

1913 0.42

1914 0.41

1915 0.41

1916 0.42

1917 0.42

1918 0.41

1919 0.40

1920 0.42

1921 0.42

1922 0.38

1923 0.36

1924 0.30

1925 0.33

Year Price

1926 0.36

1927 0.35

1928 0.37

1929 0.35

1930 0.35

1931 0.35

1932 0.35

1933 0.35

1934 0.35

1935 0.35

1936 0.35

1937 0.35

1938 0.35

1939 0.35

1940 0.35

1941 0.35

1942 0.32

1943 0.32

1944 0.32

1945 0.32

1946 0.35

1947 0.35

1948 0.36

1949 0.40

1950 0.45

1951 0.54

1952 0.57

1953 0.60

1954 0.61

1955 0.66

1956 0.65

1957 0.74

1958 0.74

1959 0.74

1960 0.74

1961 0.78

1962 0.80

1963 0.79

1964 0.79

1965 0.79

1966 0.79

1967 0.88

1968 0.95

Year Price

1969 1.05

1970 1.29

1971 1.33

1972 1.40

1973 1.53

1974 1.74

1975 2.07

1976 2.25

1977 2.27

1978 2.04

1979 2.66

1980 2.96

1981 2.71

1982 2.18

1983 2.12

1984 2.16

1985 2.26

1986 1.76

1987 2.19

1988 6.25

1989 6.04

1990 4.02

1991 3.70

1992 3.18

1993 2.40

1994 2.88

1995 3.73

1996 3.40

1997 3.14

1998 2.10

1999 2.73

2000 3.92

2001 2.70

2002 3.07

2003 4.37

2004 6.27

2005 6.69

2006 11.00

2007 16.88

2008 9.57

2009 6.64

2010 9.89
Nickel (Ni) 113

Notes:

1840–1912, Price of refined metal, as supplied by Inco Ltd.

1913–21, Price of refined metal, in Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

1922–45, Price quoted by International Nickel Co. of Canada, Ltd., for electrolytic nickel cathode at New York, in 2-short-ton minimum lots, in the nickel chapter of the U.S. Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook.

1946–47, Contract price to U.S. buyers of electrolytic nickel cathode in carlots, free on board (f.o.b.) Port Colborne, Ontario, including duty of 2.50 cents per 

pound, in the nickel chapter of the U.S. Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook.

1948–61, Contract price to U.S. buyers of electrolytic nickel cathode in carlots, f.o.b. Port Colborne, Ontario, including duty of 1.25 cents per pound, in the 

nickel chapter of the U.S. Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook. [Duty was halved on January 1, 1948.] 

1962–79, Contract price to U.S. buyers of electrolytic nickel in carlots, f.o.b. Port Colborne, Ontario, in American Metal Market. Weighted average for the year. 

U.S. import duty of 1.25 cents per pound was suspended on September 27, 1965.

1980–93, London Metal Exchange cash price for primary nickel of minimum 99.80-percent purity, delivered in the form of either cut cathodes or pellets or 

briquets, lots of 6 metric tons, in Metals Week.

1993–2010, London Metal Exchange cash price for primary nickel of minimum 99.80-percent purity, delivered in the form of either cut cathodes or pellets or 

briquets, lots of 6 metric tons, in Platt’s Metals Week.

Table 2. Annual average price for stainless steel scrap.

[Values in dollars per long ton gross weight.]

Year Price

1987 560

1988 1,150

1989 1,266

1990 927

1991 855

1992 728

Year Price

1993 634

1994 719

1995 1,055

1996 834

1997 808

1998 600

Year Price

1999 625

2000 824

2001 633

2002 703

2003 942

2004 1,473

Year Price

2005 1,468

2006 2,090

2007 2,999

2008 2,399

2009 1,486

2010 2,235

Notes:

1987–2005, Derived from the average of the Friday consumer buying price range for 18 percent chromium, 8 percent nickel scrap in bundles, solids, and clips, 

Pittsburgh, Penn., in American Metal Market (AMM).

2006–10, On November 1, 2006, AMM began reporting prices for Type 316 solids and clips and changed its listing for 18/8 bundles, solids and clips to Type 

304 solids and clips.
114 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

Niobium (Columbium) (Nb)

by John F. Papp

Niobium (columbium) was discovered in 1801 when the 

English chemist Charles Hatchett reported a new element similar to tantalum and named it columbium. Because its physical 

and chemical properties were similar to those of tantalum, the 

two metals were often confused. At the same time, columbium 

and niobium were determined to be two different metals. In 

1864 and 1865, a series of scientific findings clarified that 

niobium and columbium were the same element (as distinguished from tantalum), and for a century both names were 

used interchangeably. The name of the element was officially 

adopted as niobium in 1949.

Niobium is a refractory metal that conducts heat and 

electricity well and is characterized by a high melting point, 

resistance to corrosion, and ease of fabrication. Ferroniobium 

is used worldwide mostly as an alloying element in steels and 

in superalloys. Little commercial application was found for 

niobium until the 1930s, when metallurgists began using it in 

the form of ferroniobium in steel and as niobium carbide in 

high-speed cutting tools (Cunningham, 1985a). Acceptable 

substitutes, such as molybdenum, tantalum, titanium, tungsten, 

and vanadium, are available for some niobium applications, 

but substitution may lower performance and (or) cost-effectiveness.

The niobium price is driven by the availability of niobium 

mineral feed materials, recycling being an insignificant source 

of supply. Thus, the events affecting the supply of niobium 

mineral concentrates are discussed herein. A price table and 

graph, however, are included for standard-grade ferroniobium, 

the dominant form in which niobium is consumed. In 1979, 

the increase in demand for “high-purity” ferroniobium in 

superalloys was significant. The increased niobium demand 

affected prices for high-purity ferroniobium and for columbite, 

but had no real impact on the price for standard ferroniobium. 

The feed material for production of high-purity ferroniobium 

was columbite, and standard ferroniobium was produced from 

pyrochlore. In 1998, the price for niobium contained in concentrate was $4.29 per pound compared with $6.88 per pound 

for niobium contained in standard ferroniobium.

Brazil and Canada are the major producers of niobium 

mineral concentrates and converters of the material to ferroniobium. The U.S. niobium mining industry has not been a 

significant source since 1959. The United States satisfies its 

niobium requirements primarily by importing ferroniobium 

and niobium oxide from Brazil, ferroniobium from Canada, 

and lesser amounts of niobium concentrates for processing 

from various countries. Many of the applications for niobium 

are either directly or indirectly defense related because of its 

use in the aerospace, communications, energy, and transportation industries. Thus, the Defense Logistics Agency classified 

niobium as strategic and critical, and, over the years, various niobium materials have been purchased for the National 

Defense Stockpile (NDS).

A significant activity during the 1950s was the U.S. Government’s worldwide program for the purchase of about 6,800 

metric tons (t) of combined niobium and tantalum oxides 

contained in niobium-tantalum ores and concentrates. The purchase program was terminated in 1959 (Cunningham, 1985a, 

b). The program, which was initiated to encourage increased 

production of niobium tantalum ores and concentrates of 

domestic and foreign origin, largely governed the market 

price for niobium ores and concentrates. It also resulted in the 

discovery of large low-grade domestic and foreign deposits of 

niobium minerals. The program, however, was less successful 

in developing domestic niobium mineral production. The low 

grade of the discoveries precluded their development at current or expected future prices. Termination of the program was 

followed by lower market prices, resulting in reduced production worldwide. Marginal producers, who could not operate 

profitably at lower prices, halted production.

Reshaping of niobium supply and demand began in the 

1960s. Discovery of the strengthening effect of small amounts 

of niobium in structural carbon steel eventually led to a widespread and growing use for niobium in high-strength low-alloy 

steels. Until the mid-1960s, the world’s needs for niobium 

were provided for mostly by columbite concentrates mined in 

Nigeria; the Nigerian columbite was produced as a byproduct 

of tin mining. Development of pyrochlore deposits in Brazil 

and Canada during this period greatly increased niobium availability (Cunningham, 1985a; Miller, Fantel, and Buckingham, 

1986, p. 8; Crockett and Sutphin, 1993, p. 4–5). Pyrochlore 

deposits are mined primarily for niobium, and columbite and 

tantalite are recovered mostly as a byproduct/coproduct of 

other minerals, principally tin. The shift in niobium supply 

from Nigeria to Brazil and Canada did not have an adverse 

impact on the niobium price, which changed little or not at all 

during the 1960s, owing to the readily available supplies of 

pyrochlore.

During the 1970s, increased demand, mostly in the form 

of ferroniobium for steelmaking, continued to be met by the 

large quantities of pyrochlore concentrates produced in Brazil 

and Canada. Pyrochlore became the standard feed material for 

the manufacture of ferroniobium for steelmaking. Columbitetantalite remained as the source material for the production 

of niobium oxide used in high-purity niobium products. As 

demand increased in the 1970s, prices began to increase for 

niobium concentrates and niobium products. With continued 
Niobium (Columbium) (Nb) 115

strong demand for niobium in the manufacture of steels and 

especially high-purity niobium, the price for niobium concentrates peaked in 1979 (table 1).

In 1980, an important change in niobium supply took 

place when plants that produced niobium oxide from pyrochlore-based feed materials were established in Brazil and 

the United States, which resulted in lower prices for niobium 

oxide and high-purity niobium products (Jones, 1981). This 

change greatly diminished the need for columbite ores. Until 

1980, niobium oxide had been produced mostly from columbite- and tantalite-based materials. Niobium concentrate prices 

decreased during most of the 1980s, owing to the large quantities of pyrochlore produced in Brazil and Canada and the 

niobium products produced from this feed material, especially 

in Brazil.

Brazil’s production of niobium concentrates, mostly 

pyrochlore, accounts for more than 90 percent of 2010 world 

production of niobium. Pyrochlore concentrates, however, 

have not been exported from Brazil since 1981. Pyrochlore 

concentrates produced in Brazil are processed locally, and 

some of the upgraded niobium products are consumed domestically, with the majority of the products exported. As the 

dominant niobium producer/supplier, Brazil has maintained 

a marketing strategy of stable supply and moderate price 

changes. 

A significant change took place in the niobium industry 

in late 1994. The sole Canadian niobium concentrate producer 

began ferroniobium production at its niobium mine and plant 

in Quebec (Teck Corp., 1994, p. 13, 32). The plant converted 

basically all pyrochlore concentrates produced at the mine to 

ferroniobium. Prior to commissioning of the plant, niobium 

concentrates produced at the mine were shipped mostly to 

Europe, Japan, and the United States for conversion to ferroniobium.

In 1997, the U.S. Department of Defense initiated the sale 

of ferroniobium from the NDS. From March 1997 through 

December 1998, the Defense Logistics Agency sold about 211 

t of niobium contained in ferroniobium valued at about $2.98 

million (Cunningham, 1998; 1999, p. 1; Defense National 

Stockpile Center, 1998a, b). The overall average unit price for 

the sales, about $6.40 per pound of contained niobium, was 

somewhat less than that quoted for ferroniobium, $6.88 per 

pound of contained niobium (fig. 1; table 2).

In 1998, the leading Brazilian niobium producer initiated plans to raise its ferroniobium production capacity about 

50 percent by 2000. The expansion was aimed at maintaining 

the stability of world supply and pricing of ferroniobium in 

response to growing international demand (Metal Bulletin, 

1998).

For most of the 1990s, the price for niobium remained 

stable as the demand for and supply of niobium continued to 

increase. In 1993, the price of pyrochlore was discontinued; 

in 2000, the price of columbite, another niobium mineral, 

was discontinued; and in 2005, the price of ferroniobium was 

discontinued. In 2005, Brazil accounted for 89 percent of U.S. 

ferroniobium imports (Magyar, 2007, p. 20.8). 

Since 1990, China has increased its consumption and 

production of steel coinciding with development of its infrastructure, which resulted in increased demand for niobium; 

however, the world financial crisis in 2008 and subsequent 

economic slowdown reduced demand in the remainder of the 

world. According to one industry analyst, “Prices for niobium 

oxide, other niobium chemicals, niobium metal and various alloys derived from either pyrochlore or other niobiumbearing sources are highly variable and depend on product 

specifications, volume, and processing considerations” (Cunningham, 2005, p. 20.3). The lack of published prices reflects 

the limited number of suppliers and the practice of long-term 

contracts. Standard-grade ferroniobium is the leading commercially traded niobium-containing material. Pyrochlore, the 

leading mineral source for niobium, is not sold on the open 

market because the leading producers process the pyrochlore 

at the mine site into ferroniobium or niobium pentoxide, 

downstream products that are commercially traded (Roskill 

Information Services Ltd., 2009, p. 217–222).

References Cited

Crockett, R.N., and Sutphin, D.M., 1993, International 

Strategic Minerals Inventory summary report—Niobium 

(columbium) and tantalum: U.S. Geological Survey 

Circular 930–M, 36 p.

Cunningham, L.D., 1985a, Columbium, in Mineral facts and 

problems: U.S. Bureau of Mines Bulletin 675, p. 185–196.

Cunningham, L.D., 1985b, Tantalum, in Mineral facts and 

problems: U.S. Bureau of Mines Bulletin 675, p. 811–822.

Cunningham, L.D., 1998, Columbium (niobium): U.S. 

Geological Survey Mineral Commodity Summaries 1998, 

p. 50–51.

Cunningham, L.D., 1999, Columbium (niobium) and tantalum, 

in Metals and minerals: U.S. Geological Survey Minerals 

Yearbook 1997, v. I, p. 21.1–21.12.

Cunningham, L.D., 2005, Columbium (niobium) and tantalum, 

in Metals and minerals: U.S. Geological Survey Minerals 

Yearbook 2003, v. I, p. 20.1–20.13.

Defense National Stockpile Center, 1998a, Stockpile accepts 

ferrocolumbium offers: Fort Belvoir, VA, Defense National 

Stockpile Center news release, November 13, 1 p.

Defense National Stockpile Center, 1998b, Stockpile accepts 

ferrocolumbium offers: Fort Belvoir, VA, Defense National 

Stockpile Center news release, December 10, 1 p.

Jones, T.S., 1981, Columbium (niobium) and tantalum, in

Metals and minerals: U.S. Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook 1980, v. I, p. 249–260.
116 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

Magyar, M.J., 2007, Columbium (niobium) and tantalum, 

in Metals and minerals: U.S. Geological Survey Minerals 

Yearbook 2007, v. I, p. 20.1–20.12.

Metal Bulletin, 1998, CBMM expands to maintain ferroniobium stability: Metal Bulletin, no. 8311, September 21, 

p. 11.

Miller, F.W., Fantel, R.J., and Buckingham, D.A., 1986, 

Columbium availability—Market economy countries—A 

minerals availability appraisal: U.S. Bureau of Mines Information Circular 9085, 20 p.

Roskill Information Services Ltd., 2009, The economics of 

niobium 2009 (11th ed.): London, United Kingdom, Roskill 

Information Services Ltd., February, 222 p.

Teck Corp., 1994, Annual report 1994: Vancouver, British 

Columbia, Canada, Teck Corp., 60 p.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Dollars per pound contained niobium

Year

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION

Figure 1. Annual average ferroniobium price.

Significant events affecting niobium prices since 1970

1970–79 Increased demand

1980 Niobium oxide produced from pyrochlore-based feed material

1981 Exports of Brazilian pyrochlore ceased

1994 Production of ferroniobium began in Canada

1997–98 Sales of ferroniobium from the National Defense Stockpile (NDS)

1998 Expansion of ferroniobium production capacity in Brazil

1990–2010 Rise of China as a leading steel-producing and consuming nation

2008 Global financial crisis and subsequent economic slowdown
Niobium (Columbium) (Nb) 117

Table 1. Yearend average columbite concentrate price.

[Values in dollars per pound contained niobium pentoxide]

Year Price

1940 0.35

1941 0.35

1942 0.53

1943 0.25

1944 0.25

1945 0.60

1946 0.54

1947 0.65

1948 0.73

1949 1.13

1950 2.55

1951 2.56

1952 3.40

1953 3.40

1954 3.40

1955 3.40

1956 3.40

1957 3.40

Year Price

1958 3.40

1959 1.08

1960 1.22

1961 1.00

1962 0.95

1963 0.95

1964 0.85

1965 0.85

1966 1.11

1967 0.97

1968 0.92

1969 1.05

1970 1.12

1971 1.04

1972 1.29

1973 1.42

1974 1.64

1975 1.71

Year Price

1976 2.69

1977 2.76

1978 3.03

1979 6.78

1980 6.50

1981 6.13

1982 4.63

1983 4.63

1984 3.75

1985 3.75

1986 2.75

1987 2.43

1988 2.43

1989 3.25

1990 3.25

1991 2.83

1992 2.83

1993 2.60

Year Price

1994 2.60

1995 3.00

1996 3.00

1997 3.00

1998 3.00

1999 3.00

2000 6.25

2001 NA

2002 NA

2003 NA

2004 NA

2005 NA

2006 NA

2007 NA

2008 NA

2009 NA

2010 NA

Notes:

Prices before 1946 were published by the U.S. Bureau of Mines; origns are unknown.

1946–51, published in Metal Bulletin.

1952–58, value of U.S. Government purchases.

1959–66, published in Engineering and Mining Journal, Metal and Mineral Markets.

1967–90, published in Metals Week.

1991–2000, published in Metal Bulletin.

After 2000, published prices wee discontinued.
118 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

Table 2. Yearend average ferroniobium (ferrocolumbium) price.

[Values in dollars per pound contained niobium. NA Not available]

Year Price

1940 2.30

1941 2.30

1942 2.28

1943 2.28

1944 2.28

1945 2.28

1946 2.28

1947 2.55

1948 2.90

1949 2.90

1950 4.90

1951 4.90

1952 4.90

1953 6.40

1954 12.00

1955 6.90

1956 6.90

1957 4.90

Year Price

1958 3.73

1959 3.45

1960 3.45

1961 3.45

1962 3.40

1963 3.00

1964 3.00

1965 3.10

1966 3.21

1967 2.53

1968 2.53

1969 2.79

1970 3.49

1971 2.55

1972 2.55

1973 3.10

1974 4.12

1975 4.30

Year Price

1976 4.73

1977 5.12

1978 5.12

1979 5.58

1980 6.29

1981 6.29

1982 6.00

1983 6.00

1984 5.66

1985 5.66

1986 5.66

1987 5.66

1988 6.00

1989 6.58

1990 6.58

1991 6.58

1992 6.58

1993 6.58

Year Price

1994 6.58

1995 6.58

1996 6.58

1997 6.88

1998 6.88

1999 6.88

2000 6.88

2001 6.88

2002 6.60

2003 6.60

2004 6.57

2005 6.58

2006 NA

2007 NA

2008 NA

2009 NA

2010 NA

Notes:

1940–66, published in Engineering and Mining Journal, Metal and Mineral Markets.

1967–92, published in Metals Week.

1993–96, published in Platt’s Metals Week.

1997–2005, published in American Metal Market.

After 2005, published prices were discontinued.
Platinum-Group Metals (Ir, Os, Pd, Pt, Rh, Ru) 119

Platinum-Group Metals (Ir, Os, Pd, Pt, Rh, Ru)

by Patricia J. Loferski

The platinum-group metals (PGMs)—iridium, osmium, 

palladium, platinum, rhodium, and ruthenium—are among 

the rarest mineral commodities in the Earth’s crust. Although 

considered a precious metal today, the 16th century Spanish 

conquistadors considered platinum an unwanted impurity in 

the gold and silver that they were mining in New Granada 

(present-day Colombia). The Spaniards referred to the metal 

as “platina,” a diminutive of “plata,” the Spanish word for 

silver, and for many years it had no commercial value. Today, 

most of the world’s primary PGM production comes from 

four countries, in descending order of production—South 

Africa, Russia, Zimbabwe, and the United States. The ratio of 

palladium to platinum, the two most commercially significant 

PGMs, in individual PGM ores varies from country to country. 

South Africa produces about twice as much platinum as palladium, whereas Russia produces about three times as much 

palladium as platinum (Conradie, 1997, p. 34–40). In Canada, 

PGMs are byproducts of nickel ore processing. In the United 

States, PGMs are produced at the Stillwater and East Boulder 

Mines within the Stillwater Complex in Montana. 

The catalytic properties of the six PGMs are outstanding. 

Platinum’s wear and tarnish-resistance characteristics are well 

suited for making fine jewelry. Other distinctive properties 

include resistance to chemical attack, excellent high-temperature characteristics, and stable electrical properties. All these 

properties are important in their industrial applications. Platinum, platinum alloys, and iridium are used as crucible materials for the growth of single crystals, especially oxides for 

electronic materials. The chemical industry uses a significant 

amount of either platinum or platinum-rhodium alloy gauze 

to catalyze the partial oxidation of ammonia to yield nitric 

oxide, which is the raw material for explosives, fertilizers, 

and nitric acid. In recent years, a number of PGMs have 

become important as catalysts in synthetic organic chemistry. 

Ruthenium dioxide is used as coating on dimensionally stable 

titanium anodes used in the production of chlorine and caustic 

soda. Platinum-supported catalysts are used in the refining of 

crude oil, reforming, and other processes used in the production of high-octane gasoline and aromatic compounds for the 

petrochemical industry. Since 1979, the automotive industry 

has emerged as the principal consumer of PGMs. Palladium, 

platinum, and rhodium have been used as oxidation and 

reduction catalysts in catalytic converters to treat automobile 

exhaust emissions. A wide range of PGM alloy compositions 

is used in low-voltage and low-energy contacts, thick- and 

thin-film circuits, thermocouples and furnace components, and 

electrodes (Hilliard and Dunning, 1983, p. 129–142).

Prior to 1980, the most important prices for PGMs were 

the South African producer prices and the free-market prices 

fixed daily on the commodity exchanges. In terms of total 

value of PGM traded, the most important exchange is the New 

York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX). Producer prices give 

a certain amount of stability to the platinum and palladium 

markets. From about 1980 onward, however, the free-market 

price of platinum fell to well below the producer price, putting 

pressure on the producer price and inducing consumers to buy 

increasing quantities on the free market to meet their requirements. Also, the increased growth of investments in platinum 

added more pressure on producers to adopt a more realistic 

price level. Consequently, South African producers largely 

abandoned producer prices and adopted a pricing policy that 

more closely reflected market conditions. PGMs are traded on 

only a few exchanges around the world including NYMEX, 

the Tokyo Commodity Exchange for Industry, as well as much 

smaller markets in Johannesburg, Mumbai, and Shanghai.

Beginning in 1957 and continuing through 1958, a drop 

in demand for platinum by domestic petroleum refiners and 

persistent selling pressure by the Soviet Union at discount 

prices caused the platinum price to tumble to the lowest level 

in a decade (table 4). Soviet sales brought a corresponding 

decline in the price of palladium to the lowest level since 

1933 (table 3). In 1959, prices for platinum and palladium 

increased, reversing the trend of 1957 through 1958. The more 

orderly selling policy by the Soviet Union was a significant 

factor in the PGM market recovery. Also, U.S. Government 

purchases contributed to the higher price of palladium.

In spring 1963, the Soviet Union disrupted the orderly 

marketing of PGMs by selling large amounts of metal at 

below-market prices but curtailed its offerings later in the 

year. U.S. consumption of PGMs reached the highest level 

in history, more than 1 million troy ounces. The largest use 

for platinum was in the chemical industry, and the largest 

use for palladium was in the electrical industry (Ware, 1964, 

p. 901–907).

From 1964 to 1968, supplies of platinum were tight, 

putting upward pressure on prices. In 1965, U.S. suppliers allocated platinum to established customers at $100 per 

troy ounce. U.S. purchases of platinum rose sharply owing 

to the construction of new petroleum refineries. Prices for 

PGMs during 1967 reflected the tight supplies that persisted 

throughout the year. Although the producer price for platinum 

showed a small increase, dealer prices were up sharply. At the 

start of 1967, the producer price for platinum was $100 per 

troy ounce. On January 24, the price was increased to $109 

to $112 per troy ounce and was unchanged until December 
120 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

when sales were made at $125 per troy ounce. Dealer prices, 

which started the year at $157 to $160 per troy ounce, began 

to increase in May and were $225 to $230 per troy ounce by 

yearend. The producer price of palladium, which was $35 to 

$37 per troy ounce in October 1966, increased to $37 to $39 

per troy ounce in January 1967 and remained unchanged for 

the remainder of the year (table 3). The price of rhodium was 

$197 to $299 per troy ounce in January 1969, increased in 

March and again in December, and closed out the year at $245 

to $250 per troy ounce (table 5). During the following year, 

dealer prices were two to three times the producer prices.

In 1971, prices of PGMs declined owing to the expansion 

of platinum capacity in South Africa. In each of the previous 

8 years, South Africa increased its output. On the strength 

of an upturn in consumption and growing anticipation that 

PGMs might be needed in a few years for automotive exhaust 

emissions control, prices and production posted significant 

increases in 1972. By the second quarter of 1972, U.S. dealer 

prices for platinum and palladium had exceeded producer 

prices. By midyear, the dealer price for iridium had increased 

from $145 to $148 per troy ounce to $525 per troy ounce 

(fig. 1). Production and price trends continued the upward 

trend in 1973. Producer prices, which were under Government control much of the year, increased by 10 percent to 50 

percent in February, fluctuated between narrow limits in June, 

and then advanced again in late September. After price controls were removed from most nonferrous metals in December, 

rhodium and iridium prices increased by another 14 percent to 

15 percent (tables 5 and 1). Ruthenium remained unchanged 

after a February increase to $60 per troy ounce, and osmium 

stayed at $200 per troy ounce through the year (figs. 6 and 2). 

The dealer price of iridium jumped from $250 to $450 per troy 

ounce in July, as the metal became scarce, and ended the year 

at $525 per troy ounce (Butterman, 1975, p. 1040).

PGM prices were mostly flat from 1975 through 1977. In 

1977, the producer price for platinum was steady at $162 per 

troy ounce (fig. 4). The producer price for palladium began 

1977 at $55 per troy ounce, increased to $60 per troy ounce 

in late January, and remained at that level for the remainder 

of the year (fig. 3). The price of rhodium was about $400 per 

troy ounce at the beginning of the year and increased to $450 

per troy ounce in March owing to increased industrial demand 

and speculation regarding the use of rhodium in automotive 

catalytic converters (fig. 5). Iridium started the year at $300 

per troy ounce, decreased to $250 per troy ounce in June, and 

returned to $300 per troy ounce for the remainder of the year. 

The price of osmium was $200 per troy ounce for the first 6 

months of 1977 but declined to around $150 per troy ounce in 

the last 6 months of the year owing to continued weak demand 

(table 2). The price of ruthenium remained at around $60 per 

troy ounce from 1974 through 1976 (table 6).

From 1978 to 1980, prices of platinum rose substantially 

owing to strong investor interest, chronic world inflation, and 

tight supply. In 1980, platinum, gold, and silver prices soared 

as a result of speculative activity. The platinum dealer price 

peaked at $990 per troy ounce in March 1980. Palladium 

prices moved up moderately in 1978 and more sharply in 1979 

partly owing to increased investor interest. Rhodium prices 

increased only moderately in 1978, but in 1979 the price 

increased sharply. This was in response to larger purchases of 

the metal by the automotive industry for use as an automotive 

emissions control catalyst.

In 1981 and 1982, lower world demand for PGMs 

resulted in lower prices. In 1983, dealer prices for platinum 

and palladium increased substantially. A major South African 

producer, Rustenburg Platinum Holdings Ltd., suspended its 

producer prices for PGMs and began selling most of its output 

at market prices. Platinum and palladium were recognized 

more as world commodities than commodities controlled 

exclusively by South African producers. Trading activity in 

futures contracts on NYMEX increased substantially.

In 1984, the dealer price for rhodium nearly doubled 

because of higher demand for rhodium in automobile threeway catalytic converters. The automotive industry became the 

dominant user of rhodium in the early 1980s.

In 1986, the dealer price for platinum increased by 60 

percent owing to a work stoppage at Impala Platinum Holdings Ltd. in South Africa and anticipation that U.S. imports of 

platinum from South Africa would be cut off because of the 

anti-apartheid legislation passed by the U.S. Congress. PGMs 

were later exempted from the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid 

Act of 1986.

In December 1988, the platinum market reacted strongly 

to an announcement by Ford Motor Co. that it had developed 

a platinum-free automobile catalyst. Spot platinum prices fell 

to $100 per troy ounce on the day of the announcement, and 

futures prices in New York fell the maximum of $25 per troy 

ounce for two consecutive days. The average dealer price for 

platinum in December was $557 per troy ounce. By January 

1989, the average price had fallen to $528 per troy ounce.

From 1990 to 1998, the annual average New York dealer 

price of platinum fluctuated within the relatively narrow 

range of $375 and $475 per troy ounce. The price history of 

palladium was similar. The price of rhodium, however, was 

dramatically different.

In the late 1970s, market economy countries began 

implementing measures to reduce pollutants in automobile 

exhausts. The emphasis on controlling air pollution resulted in 

increased demand for PGMs. Palladium-rhodium and platinum-rhodium oxidation and reduction catalysts were developed for use in catalytic converters. The increased demand 

caused the annual average price of rhodium to increase from 

$312 per troy ounce in 1983 to $929 in 1985. From 1986 to 

1988, the monthly average New York dealer price of rhodium 

ranged from $1,150 to $1,300 per troy ounce. In early 1989, 

the announcement of problems at South Africa’s Rustenburg 

Platinum precious metals refinery caused the price to jump to 

more than $2,000 per troy ounce. By July 3, 1990, rhodium 

was being quoted at $7,000 per troy ounce. This level could 

not be sustained, but the price fell no lower than $4,100 per 

troy ounce in November, reached $4,500 per troy ounce in 

early December, and rose sharply to $5,300 per troy ounce in 
Platinum-Group Metals (Ir, Os, Pd, Pt, Rh, Ru) 121

the last week of 1990. Starting in 1992, the price trend of rhodium turned downward. This was brought on by a recession 

in market economy countries, reduced sales of automobiles, 

and, consequently, reduced demand for automobile catalysts. 

Improved metallurgical recovery increased the supply of 

rhodium, which also exerted downward pressure on price. In 

January 1997, the rhodium price sank to $200 per troy ounce, 

its lowest level in nearly 24 years. Prices began to rise again 

in June, reaching a peak of $370 per troy ounce, as delayed 

shipments from Russia caused a shortage of supply. The price 

retreated to $300 per troy ounce in August but rallied to $360 

per troy ounce at yearend, following speculative buying in the 

United States. Prices continued to rise in 1998, reaching $640 

per troy ounce in April, its highest level since 1994 (Platts 

Metals Week, 1998).

From 1990 to 1996, prices for ruthenium and iridium 

remained mostly unchanged within narrow limits. Supply and 

demand were in balance, and there was little or no upward 

pressure on prices. At the start of 1997, strong consumer purchasing coupled with increasingly limited availability caused 

the price of iridium to increase from $110 per troy ounce to 

$200 per troy ounce in late January. The price reached $290 

per troy ounce in October but eased slightly to $270 per troy 

ounce at yearend. Strong consumer purchasing and continued 

tight supply lifted the price to $575 per troy ounce in April 

1998. The price subsequently began to ease, as industrial 

demand slackened, and supplies increased.

From late 1999 through early 2001, platinum prices rose 

owing to increased consumption by the automobile industry; 

prices were supported both by strong consumer demand and 

limited physical availability. In 2001, delays in PGM shipments from Russia caused supply disruptions, which led to 

soaring palladium prices. For several years prior to 2001, 

palladium was increasingly used in catalytic converters 

because it was particularly effective for reducing hydrocarbon emissions, which were being more stringently regulated. 

This increased use of palladium, compounded by the Russian 

supply disruption, caused the palladium price to reach $1,083 

per troy ounce in 2001, which was higher than that of platinum for the first time. Following its peak in early 2001, the 

palladium price plummeted to $326 per troy ounce by yearend. Palladium’s high price led to a decrease in demand as 

automakers substituted less-expensive platinum for palladium 

in catalytic converters for gasoline engines. Other metals 

were also substituted for palladium in the dental and electronics industries. From late-1999 to mid-2001, rhodium prices 

increased. The increase was partly because of its substitution 

for palladium in catalytic converters because of the palladium 

price rise, and also because larger quantities of rhodium were 

needed in catalytic converters in order to meet tougher emission standards.

From early 1999 through late 2001, iridium prices held 

steady at around $415 per troy ounce. By early 2004, the iridium price dropped to $87 per troy ounce, owing to decreased 

demand for iridium crucibles by the electronics industry. 

Ruthenium prices increased sharply from $46 per troy ounce 

in early 2000 to $170 per troy ounce at the end of 2000, 

partly because of speculative purchasing. The ruthenium price 

decreased steadily until the end of 2002, owing both to excess 

inventories of electronic components and to a price correction 

back to levels prior to the speculation-driven surge of 2000.

In late 2001, the platinum price dipped to $456 per troy 

ounce. The platinum price then rose nearly continuously until 

the end of 2007, when it reached an average monthly price of 

$1,492 per troy ounce. The price rise was the result of a steady 

increase in demand from the automobile catalytic converter 

sector. Monthly average palladium prices continued the 

decrease that started in 2001, and reached $202 per troy ounce 

in early 2003 as a result of excess supply as well as selling 

by investors. Monthly average palladium prices, however, 

increased to $300 per troy ounce in early 2004, decreased to 

$193 per troy ounce in late 2004, and then increased steadily 

to $355 per troy ounce by the yearend 2007. With the palladium price well below that of platinum, automakers switched 

back to palladium for catalytic converters for gasoline engines. 

The rhodium price decreased gradually from late 2001 until 

late 2003, reaching $500 per troy ounce. From 2003 to 2007, 

the rhodium price rose dramatically. The rhodium price 

increase was driven by increased consumption in automobile 

catalytic converters and a lack of substitutes for rhodium in 

reducing nitrous oxide emissions.

In January 2008, platinum mines in South Africa were 

shut down for 5 days after the state-run utility, Eskom 

Holdings, Ltd., ran short of electrical-generating capacity. The 

shutdown led to fears of a supply shortage, and, as a result, 

prices of platinum, palladium, and rhodium soared. In mid2008, the price of platinum reached an alltime high of $2,275 

per troy ounce; palladium was $585 per troy ounce, and 

rhodium soared to an alltime high of $10,100 per troy ounce. 

The resumption of all mining activities, followed by the global 

economic downturn in 2008, caused PGM prices to plummet. 

By late 2008, platinum was $760 per troy ounce, palladium 

was $170 per troy ounce, and rhodium was $1,000 per troy 

ounce. Following the extreme price rise of rhodium, manufacturers of catalytic converters worked to minimize the amount 

of rhodium needed to meet emission standards.

During 2009 and 2010, prices of platinum and palladium 

gradually increased. Average monthly palladium prices rose 

higher than those of mid-2008 owing to increased demand 

from the automotive sector, whereas average monthly platinum prices remained less than their mid-2008 level. In 2009 

and 2010, average monthly prices of rhodium remained well 

below the high prices of 2008.

Iridium prices spiked in early 2004 as a result of speculative interest and rose from $87 to $230 per troy ounce. 

Iridium price decreased to $145 per troy ounce by early 2005, 

increased gradually throughout 2005, and then increased rapidly in early 2006, reaching a monthly average price of $400 

per troy ounce. The iridium price remained between $400 and 

$450 per troy ounce until early 2010, when there was a sharp 

increase to $725 per troy ounce. The large price increase in 

2010 was the result of increased purchasing by the electro-
122 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

chemical and electronics sectors, particularly in China. In the 

electronics sector, iridium crucibles were used to grow highpurity single crystals for production of light-emitting diodes 

(LEDs). In the electrochemical sector, iridium was used in 

chloralkali production plants as older mercury-based technology was replaced.

From 2002 to 2006, average monthly ruthenium prices 

remained below $100 per troy ounce. In 2007, ruthenium 

prices soared to $694 per troy ounce owing to purchases by 

the computer industry. Ruthenium was used in a new computer hard disk technology, known as perpendicular magnetic 

recording, which greatly increased computer storage capacity. 

The industry subsequently found ways to use less ruthenium 

in the hard drives, and the price fell back to $89 per troy ounce 

by early 2009, where it remained until late 2009. The ruthenium price rose to $245 per troy ounce in mid-2010 owing 

to increased demand from the electronics sector, and then 

decreased to $180 per troy ounce at the end of 2010.

Exchange-traded funds (ETFs) were introduced for 

platinum and palladium in Europe and the United States in 

2007 and 2010, respectively. ETFs were essentially paper 

investments that were backed by bullion and allowed investment without having to take in physical delivery of the metals. 

Although ETF purchases led to sharp increases in investment 

demand for platinum and palladium, the metal prices were not 

greatly affected.

Osmium prices remained at $450 per troy ounce from 

1998 through 2010 because of its few uses and limited number 

of consumers.

References Cited

Butterman, W.C., 1975, Platinum-group metals, in Metals, 

minerals, and fuels: U.S. Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook 1973, v. I, p. 1,037–1,049.

Conradie, A.S., 1997, Platinum-group metals, in South Africa’s mineral industry, 1996/1997 (14th ed.): Braamfontein, 

South Africa, South Africa Department of Minerals and 

Energy, Minerals Bureau, November, p. 34–40.

Hilliard, H.E., and Dunning, B.W., 1983, Recovery of platinum-group metals and gold from electronic scrap, in Lundy, 

D.E., and Zysk, E.D., eds., The platinum group metals—An 

in depth view of the industry: 1983 IPMI International 

Seminar, Williamsburg, Va., April 10–13, 1983, p. 129–142.

Platt’s Metals Week, 1998, Daily prices: Platt’s Metals Week, 

v. 69, no. 16, April 20, p. 17.

Ware, G.C., 1964, Platinum-group metals, in Metals and 

minerals (except fuels): U.S. Bureau of Mines Minerals 

Yearbook 1963, v. I, p. 899–911.
Platinum-Group Metals (Ir, Os, Pd, Pt, Rh, Ru) 123

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Dollars per troy ounce

Year

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION

Figure 1. Platinum-Group Metals—Annual average iridium price.

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Dollars per troy ounce

Year

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION

Figure 2. Platinum-Group Metals—Annual average osmium price.
124 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Dollars per troy ounce

Year

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION

Figure 3. Platinum-Group Metals—Annual average palladium price.

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Dollars per troy ounce

Year

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION

Figure 4. Platinum-Group Metals—Annual average platinum price.
Platinum-Group Metals (Ir, Os, Pd, Pt, Rh, Ru) 125

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Dollars per troy ounce

Year

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION

Figure 5. Platinum-Group Metals—Annual average rhodium price.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Dollars per troy ounce

Year

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION

Figure 6. Platinum-Group Metals—Annual average ruthenium price.
126 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

Significant events affecting platinum-group metals (PGM) prices since 1970

1971 PGM prices declined owing to expansion of production in South Africa 

1973 Anticipated demand for platinum and palladium in automobile catalytic converters in the United States put 

pressure on prices; catalytic converters first used in 1974

1980 Strong investor speculation pushed up prices for all precious metals

1983 Rustenburg Platinum Holdings Ltd. in South Africa suspended its producer price quotations for PGMs; increased 

trading of futures contracts on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX)

1984 Price increased for rhodium because of higher demand for rhodium in automobile three-way catalytic converters

1986 Platinum price increased after a work stoppage at Impala Platinum Holdings Ltd. in South Africa

2001 Palladium price higher than platinum price for the first time because of disruptions of PGM supplies from Russia

2007 Ruthenium price increased owing to use in new computer hard-disk technology

2008 South African PGM mines shut down for 1 week in January because of power supply shortages; prices of 

platinum, palladium, and rhodium soar. Global economic crisis later in the year results in price declines for 

PGMs

2010 Iridium price increased because of increased demand from the electrical and electrochemical sectors
Platinum-Group Metals (Ir, Os, Pd, Pt, Rh, Ru) 127

Table 1. Platinum-Group Metals—Annual average iridium price.

[Values in dollars per troy ounce. NA Not available]

Year Price

1911 62

1912 65

1913 65

1914 65

1915 83

1916 94

1917 150

1918 175

1919 255

1920 331

1921 195

1922 200

1923 NA

1924 293

1925 363

1926 169

1927 120

1928 294

1929 238

1930 179

1931 114

1932 68

1933 58

1934 59

1935 57

Year Price

1936 104

1937 88

1938 69

1939 113

1940 169

1941 183

1942 168

1943 165

1944 165

1945 165

1946 139

1947 92

1948 108

1949 104

1950 146

1951 200

1952 192

1953 178

1954 213

1955 103

1956 105

1957 105

1958 77

1959 77

1960 76

Year Price

1961 72

1962 72

1963 73

1964 85

1965 100

1966 145

1967 188

1968 188

1969 185

1970 156

1971 152

1972 162

1973 223

1974 391

1975 477

1976 325

1977 258

1978 240

1979 280

1980 666

1981 529

1982 359

1983 309

1984 424

1985 438

Year Price

1986 414

1987 363

1988 306

1989 303

1990 307

1991 283

1992 158

1993 47

1994 66

1995 55

1996 68

1997 218

1998 430

1999 411 

2000 415 

2001 415 

2002 295 

2003 93 

2004 185 

2005 170 

2006 349 

2007 444 

2008 448 

2009 420 

2010 642 

Notes:

1911–29, New York price of refined metal, in Hill., J.M., 1922, The marketing of platinum: Engineering and Mining Journal-Press, p. 718.

1930–66, Producer price at New York of 99-percent-pure iridium, in Engineering and Mining Journal, Metal and Mineral Markets.

1967–93, Metals Week New York Dealer, f.o.b. New York, spot, estimated market price for minimum 99-percent-pure iridium, in Metals Week.

1993–98, Metals Week New York Dealer, f.o.b. New York, spot, estimated market price for minimum 99-percent-pure iridium, in Platt’s Metals Week.

1998–2010, Englehard unfabricated price of minimum 99-percent-pure iridium in Platts (Platt’s) Metals Week.
128 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

Table 2. Platinum-Group Metals—Annual average osmium price.

[Values in dollars per troy ounce]

Year Price

1930 67

1931 67

1932 62

1933 63

1934 68

1935 50

1936 55

1937 57

1938 57

1939 57

1940 57

1941 47

1942 47

1943 50

1944 50

1945 50

1946 67

1947 100

1948 100

1949 100

1950 141

Year Price

1951 208

1952 208

1953 166

1954 144

1955 96

1956 90

1957 90

1958 80

1959 80

1960 80

1961 65

1962 65

1963 65

1964 95

1965 236

1966 350

1967 400

1968 400

1969 335

1970 215

1971 210

Year Price

1972 212

1973 200

1974 200

1975 200

1976 200

1977 130

1978 130

1979 130

1980 130

1981 130

1982 130

1983 132

1984 455

1985 915

1986 704

1987 633

1988 592

1989 549

1990 416

1991 400

1992 400

Year Price

1993 400

1994 450

1995 450

1996 450

1997 450

1998 450

1999 450

2000 450

2001 450

2002 450

2003 450

2004 450

2005 450

2006 450

2007 450

2008 450

2009 450

2010 450

Notes:

1930–66, Producer price at New York of 99.5-percent-pure osmium, in Engineering and Mining Journal, Metal and Mineral Markets.

1967–93, Metals Week New York Dealer, f.o.b. New York, spot, estimated market price for minimum 99.5-percent-pure osmium, in Metals Week.

1993–98, Metals Week New York Dealer, f.o.b. New York, spot, estimated market price for minimum 99.5-percent-pure osmium, in Platt’s Metals Week.

1998–2010, Metals Week New York Dealer, f.o.b. New York, spot, estimated market price for minimum 99.5-percent-pure osmium, in Platts (Platt’s) Metals 

Week.
Platinum-Group Metals (Ir, Os, Pd, Pt, Rh, Ru) 129

Table 3. Platinum-Group Metals—Annual average palladium price.

[Values in dollars per troy ounce. NA Not available]

Year Price

1911 55

1912 55

1913 50

1914 44

1915 56

1916 67

1917 110

1918 135

1919 130

1920 108

1921 59

1922 60

1923 NA

1924 94

1925 79

1926 70

1927 58

1928 46

1929 40

1930 24

1931 18

1932 18

1933 18

1934 23

1935 23

Year Price

1936 23

1937 23

1938 23

1939 23

1940 24

1941 24

1942 24

1943 24

1944 24

1945 24

1946 24

1947 24

1948 24

1949 24

1950 24

1951 24

1952 24

1953 24

1954 21

1955 22

1956 24

1957 24

1958 17

1959 19

1960 25

Year Price

1961 25

1962 25

1963 25

1964 31

1965 33

1966 34

1967 38

1968 45

1969 42

1970 38

1971 37

1972 42

1973 78

1974 133

1975 93

1976 51

1977 49

1978 63

1979 120

1980 201

1981 95

1982 67

1983 136

1984 148

1985 107

Year Price

1986 116

1987 130

1988 123

1989 144

1990 114

1991 87

1992 89

1993 123

1994 156

1995 153

1996 130

1997 184

1998 290

1999 363 

2000 692 

2001 611 

2002 340 

2003 203 

2004 233 

2005 204 

2006 323 

2007 357 

2008 355 

2009 266 

2010 531 

Notes:

1911–29, New York price of refined metal, in Hill, J.M., 1922, The marketing of platinum: Engineering and Mining Journal-Press, p. 718.

1930–66, Producer price at New York of 99.9-percent-pure palladium, in Engineering and Mining Journal, Metal and Mineral Markets.

1967–93, New York price per troy ounce of 99.9-percent-pure palladium in 100-ounce lots, in Metals Week.

1993–98, New York price per troy ounce of 99.9-percent-pure palladium in 100-ounce lots, in Platt’s Metals Week.

1998–2010, Englehard unfabricated price of minimum 99.9-percent-pure palladium in Platts (Platt’s) Metals Week.
130 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

Table 4. Platinum-Group Metals—Annual average platinum price.

[Values in dollars per troy ounce. NA Not available]

Year Price

1880 4

1881 4

1882 3

1883 3

1884 3

1885 1

1886 2

1887 4

1888 4

1889 4

1890 4

1891 5

1892 7

1893 7

1894 6

1895 6

1896 6

1897 6

1898 15

1899 6

1900 6

1901 20

1902 20

1903 19

1904 21

1905 17

1906 28

1907 NA

1908 21

1909 25

1910 33

1911 43

1912 45

Year Price

1913 45

1914 45

1915 47

1916 83

1917 103

1918 106

1919 115

1920 111

1921 75

1922 98

1923 117

1924 119

1925 119

1926 113

1927 85

1928 79

1929 68

1930 44

1931 32

1932 32

1933 31

1934 34

1935 33

1936 42

1937 47

1938 34

1939 36

1940 36

1941 36

1942 36

1943 35

1944 35

1945 35

Year Price

1946 53

1947 62

1948 92

1949 75

1950 76

1951 93

1952 93

1953 93

1954 88

1955 94

1956 105

1957 90

1958 66

1959 72

1960 83

1961 83

1962 83

1963 82

1964 90

1965 100

1966 100

1967 111

1968 117

1969 124

1970 133

1971 121

1972 121

1973 150

1974 181

1975 164

1976 162

1977 157

1978 261

Year Price

1979 445

1980 677

1981 446

1982 327

1983 424

1984 357

1985 291

1986 461

1987 553

1988 523

1989 507

1990 467

1991 371

1992 361

1993 375

1994 411

1995 425

1996 398

1997 397

1998 373

1999 379 

2000 549 

2001 533 

2002 543 

2003 694 

2004 849 

2005 900 

2006 1,144 

2007 1,308 

2008 1,578 

2009 1,208 

2010 1,616 

Notes:

1880–1910, Annual average price of crude platinum, in Mineral Resources of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey annual reports.

1911–29, New York price of refined metal, in Hill, J.M., 1922, The marketing of platinum: Engineering and Mining Journal-Press, p. 718.

1930–66, Producer price at New York of 99.9-percent-pure platinum, in Engineering and Mining Journal, Metal and Mineral Markets.

1967–93, New York price per troy ounce of 99.9-percent-pure platinum in 50-ounce lots, in Metals Week.

1993–98, New York price per troy ounce of 99.9-percent-pure platinum in 50-ounce lots, in Platt’s Metals Week.

1998–2010, Englehard unfabricated price of minimum 99.9-percent-pure platinum in Platts (Platt’s) Metals Week.
Platinum-Group Metals (Ir, Os, Pd, Pt, Rh, Ru) 131

Table 5. Platinum-Group Metals—Annual average rhodium price.

[Values in dollars per troy ounce]

Year Price

1930 50

1931 50

1932 43

1933 49

1934 56

1935 53

1936 65

1937 111

1938 125

1939 125

1940 125

1941 125

1942 125

1943 125

1944 125

1945 125

1946 125

1947 125

1948 125

1949 125

1950 125

Year Price

1951 125

1952 125

1953 125

1954 123

1955 121

1956 121

1957 121

1958 121

1959 123

1960 136

1961 139

1962 139

1963 139

1964 155

1965 183

1966 198

1967 225

1968 247

1969 240

1970 215

1971 200

Year Price

1972 197

1973 222

1974 329

1975 338

1976 348

1977 409

1978 524

1979 770

1980 729

1981 498

1982 323

1983 312

1984 607

1985 929

1986 1,157

1987 1,222

1988 1,218

1989 1,300

1990 3,565

1991 3,739

1992 2,465

Year Price

1993 1,066

1994 636

1995 463

1996 300

1997 298

1998 620

1999 904 

2000 1,989 

2001 1,599 

2002 839 

2003 530 

2004 938 

2005 2,060 

2006 4,561 

2007 6,203 

2008 6,534 

2009 1,591 

2010 2,459 

Notes:

1930–66, Producer price at New York of 99.9-percent-pure rhodium, in Engineering and Mining Journal, Metal and Mineral Markets.

1967–76, Producer price at New York of 99.9-percent-pure rhodium,in Metals Week.

1977–93, Dealer price at New York of 99.9-percent-pure rhodium, in Metals Week.

1993–98, Dealer price at New York of 99.9-percent-pure rhodium, in Platt’s Metals Week.

1998–2010, Englehard unfabricated price of 99.9-percent-pure rhodium in Platts (Platt’s) Metals Week.
132 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

Table 6. Platinum-Group Metals—Annual average ruthenium price.

[Values in dollars per troy ounce]

Year Price

1930 42

1931 41

1932 41

1933 42

1934 45

1935 40

1936 38

1937 40

1938 37

1939 37

1940 37

1941 37

1942 37

1943 35

1944 35

1945 35

1946 68

1947 62

1948 92

1949 75

1950 76

Year Price

1951 93

1952 86

1953 86

1954 67

1955 52

1956 50

1957 50

1958 50

1959 56

1960 55

1961 57

1962 57

1963 57

1964 57

1965 57

1966 57

1967 58

1968 58

1969 56

1970 53

1971 52

Year Price

1972 52

1973 59

1974 60

1975 60

1976 60

1977 35

1978 33

1979 32

1980 35

1981 32

1982 26

1983 28

1984 103

1985 101

1986 73

1987 70

1988 61

1989 62

1990 61

1991 55

1992 29

Year Price

1993 13

1994 22

1995 26

1996 43

1997 37

1998 47

1999 41 

2000 130 

2001 131 

2002 66 

2003 35 

2004 64 

2005 74 

2006 193 

2007 574 

2008 325 

2009 97 

2010 198 

Notes:

1930–66, Producer price at New York of refined metal, in Engineering and Mining Journal, Metal and Mineral Markets.

1967–76, Producer price at New York of 99.9-percent-pure ruthenium, in Metals Week.

1977–93, Dealer price at New York of 99.9-percent-pure ruthenium, in Metals Week.

1993–98, Dealer price at New York of 99.9-percent-pure ruthenium, in Platt’s Metals Week.

1998–2010, Englehard unfabricated price of 99.9-percent-pure ruthenium in Platts (Platt’s) Metals Week.
Rare-Earth Metals (Ce, Dy, Eu, Gd, La, Nd, Pr, Sm, Sc, Tb, Y) 133

Rare-Earth Metals (Ce, Dy, Eu, Gd, La, Nd, Pr, Sm, Sc, Tb, Y)

by U.S. Geological Survey National Minerals Information Center staff

The rare earths are defined as the 17 elements comprised 

of scandium, yttrium, and the 15 lanthanides (Leigh, 1990, 

p. 43). 

The rare earths were discovered in 1787 by Swedish 

Army Lieutenant Karl Axel Arrhenius when he collected 

the black mineral ytterbite (later renamed gadolinite) from 

a feldspar and quartz mine near the village of Ytterby, Sweden (Weeks and Leicester, 1968, p. 667). Because they have 

similar chemical structures, the rare-earth elements proved difficult to separate. It was not until 1794 that the first rare-earthcontaining compound, an impure yttrium oxide, was isolated 

from the mineral ytterbite by Finnish chemist Johann Gadolin 

(Weeks and Leicester, 1968, p. 671). Separation technology 

and metallurgical methods advanced in the years after Swedish 

chemist and mineralogist Carl Gustav Mosander first prepared 

metallic cerium in 1827 (Mosander, 1827).

Rare earths were first produced commercially in the 

1880s in Sweden and Norway from the rare-earth mineral 

monazite. The first rare-earth production in the United States 

was recorded in 1893 in North Carolina; however, a small tonnage of monazite was reportedly mined as early as 1887.

The first large-scale application of rare-earth metals 

began when Auer von Welsbach patented a pyrophoric alloy 

that comprised 70 percent mischmetal (a natural mixture 

of metallic rare-earth elements as derived from ore) and 30 

percent iron in 1903 (Greinacher, 1981). Five years later, 

the mischmetal-iron alloy was commercially marketed in an 

ignition system for incandescent gas lamps. Rare-earth metals 

in pure form were first prepared in 1931. In the 1940s, some 

applications were found for alloying rare-earth metals with 

ductile iron, but significant uses were not developed until the 

late 1960s. The use of individual rare-earth metals remained 

small until the 1950s when separation and metallurgical 

technologies improved. Demand then increased as lower cost 

individual rare-earth metals became available (Gschneidner, 

1988).

Promethium, one of the lanthanide group of elements, is 

radioactive. Except for very minor occurrences of this element 

in nature, most commercially available material is created 

in the laboratory. Of the 13 isotopes known to occur, promethium’s half-lives are short, existing for only a few seconds 

to a few years. Because it is used in very small quantities and 

isotope price data are typically based on its radioactivity, promethium prices are not included in this report.

Prices of commercial quantities of a complete range of 

rare-earth metals were first quoted in the United States in the 

late 1950s and early 1960s. Prices decreased considerably as 

availability and extraction technology improved. Rare-earth 

metal prices vary considerably depending on purity and quantity. Price fluctuations in the late 1950s to 2010 were affected 

primarily by supply and demand, environmental legislation, 

and economic factors, especially inflation and energy costs 

(figs. 1–11; tables 1–11).

The decline in rare-earth metal prices from 1958–71 

resulted from the startup of operations at the large rare-earths 

deposit at Mountain Pass, Calif., in 1952. The period was 

characterized by widespread commercialization of the individual rare earths, including compounds and metals. A significant 

development in the late 1960s was the acceptance of rare-earth 

silicide, and later, mischmetal, as additives in high-strength 

low-alloy (HSLA) steels.

From 1971–78, rare-earth demand continued to grow, and 

supply kept pace. Demand for mischmetal increased late in the 

period as a result of its use in steel for the Alaskan oil pipeline. Beginning in 1978, prices for the rare-earth metals were 

tied primarily to the U.S. economy. Double-digit inflation and 

higher energy costs increased operating costs throughout the 

mining industry. Rare-earth metal prices and operating costs 

followed the trend and began increasing in 1979.

After the 1981–82 recession, as the economy improved 

and inflation subsided, rare-earth metal prices stabilized, for 

the most part. The exception during this period was scandium. 

The main source of scandium at this time, the Soviet Union, 

ceased exports in 1984, reportedly because of internal demand 

for laser research. The price for scandium rose to an astronomical $75,000 per kilogram. Scandium’s price decreased 

markedly the following year as production in the United States 

came online (Hedrick, 1987a).

In 1985, demand for the rare earths used in petroleum 

fluid-cracking catalysts, their principal market, dropped 

sharply. The rapid decline was the result of environmental 

legislation reducing the amount of lead allowed in gasoline. 

This legislation caused refineries to switch to fluid-cracking 

catalysts that used significantly lower amounts of rare earths. 

With demand down, U.S. mine production decreased by nearly 

50 percent in 1985, resulting in a substantial increase in rareearth metal prices the following year (Hedrick, 1987b).

Prices for rare-earth metals in the 1980s and 1990s were 

mixed. Growth in the rare-earth industry between 1986 and 

1998 was primarily in the markets for individual high-purity 

products. Rare-earth metal demand in this period was greatest for neodymium metal used in high-strength neodymiumiron-boron (NIB) permanent magnet alloys. Prices for neodymium and the NIB alloying agent, dysprosium, increased 

in the mid-1980s as demand increased. As a result of the 

increased NIB magnet demand, demand and price decreased 
134 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

for samarium metal used in the higher cost samarium-cobalt 

magnets. The price of cerium metal increased in 1992 as 

demand increased for cerium compounds used in automotive catalytic converters. Lanthanum’s price increased in the 

mid-1990s as demand increased for lanthanum-nickel metal 

hydride rechargeable batteries used primarily in camcorders, 

cellular phones, cordless tools, and laptop computers. The 

price of yttrium metal declined in 1990, as low-cost yttrium 

from southern China became widely available on world 

markets. Europium’s price declined in 1995, as low-cost Chinese material pushed prices lower amid strong international 

competition. Prices for most other rare-earth metals stayed 

fairly stable or declined because of small demand and limited 

applications.

In 2002, Molycorp Inc.’s Mountain Pass rare-earths mine 

closed; the company’s rare-earths separation and refining 

plants had closed in 1998. Molycorp continued to sell from its 

stockpile of bastäsite concentrates, intermediate concentrates, 

and separated compounds previously processed. As a result of 

the closure, most of the U.S. demand for rare-earth materials 

was supplied from China, the world’s principal rare-earth supplier. Beginning in 2001, the prices listed in the accompanying tables and figures are bulk shipment prices for metal, free 

on board (f.o.b.) China, and do not correlate well with earlier 

prices supplied by U.S. industry. Because of the small quantities of these rare-earth metals that are consumed in the United 

States, prices for erbium, holmium, lutetium, thulium, and 

ytterbium were not available.

After China became the leading United States rare earths 

supplier, its internal policies had a substantial effect on United 

States and world prices. These policies included setting 

production quotas, instituting export taxes, and establishing 

export quotas. In 1990, the Chinese Government declared rare 

earths to be protected and strategic minerals. As a consequence, foreign investors were prohibited from mining rare 

earths and were restricted from participating in rare-earth 

smelting and separation projects, except in joint ventures with 

Chinese firms (Tse, 2011).

In addition to setting production quotas for rare earths, 

China also set quotas on the amount of rare earths that can 

be exported. This policy had the most significant effect on 

rare-earth prices. In 2005, a rebate on exported rare earths was 

eliminated, and trade of rare-earth concentrate was banned. 

Between 2005 and 2007, the Government quota allocated 

more than 40,000 metric tons (t) of rare-earth production to 

domestic producers and traders and about 16,000 t to Sinoforeign joint-venture producers. In 2007, the Government 

introduced an export duty on rare-earth products to restrict the 

export of products that consume large amounts of energy to 

produce, in order to protect the domestic supply of strategic 

minerals. In 2008, the Government reduced the rare-earth 

export quota for domestic rare-earth producers and traders by 

21.6 percent from that of 2007; in 2009, it reduced the quota 

by an additional 2.5 percent. These cuts in export quotas, 

which reduced supplies outside of China, led to increased 

prices for most rare-earth metals.

In 2010, China’s Government-allocated first tranche of 

the rare-earth export quota was slightly more than the allocation for the first tranche for 2009. In the second tranche of the 

export quota issued in July 2010, the Government allocated 70 

percent less than the second half 2009 allocation, resulting in 

a rare-earth export quota for 2010 that was 37.1 percent less 

than the quota in 2009 (Tse, 2011). As a result of the drastic 

cut in the export quota, most rare-earth metal prices skyrocketed in the second half of 2010.

China’s dominant position as the producer of more than 

95 percent of the world output of rare-earth minerals, its decisions to restrict exports of rare earths, and the rapid increase 

in the consumption of rare earths owing to the emergence of 

new clean-energy and defense-related technologies resulted in 

heightened concerns about the future availability and prices 

of rare earths. As a result, industrial countries such as Japan, 

the United States, and countries of the European Union have 

continued studies and adopted policies to encourage alternative supplies of rare earths. In the United States, Mountain 

Pass was expected to resume operation in 2013.

References Cited

Greinacher, Ekkehard, 1981, History of rare earth applications, rare earth market today, chap. 1 of Industrial application of the rare earth elements: American Chemical Society 

Symposium Series 164, p. 3–17.

Gschneidner, K.A., Jr., 1988, Past, present and future of rare 

earth metallurgy in 1787–1987—Two hundred years of 

rare earths: New York, Rare-earth Information Center and 

North-Holland, p. 23–32.

Hedrick, J.B., 1987a, Other metals, in Metals and minerals: U.S. Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook 1985, v. I, 

p. 1096–1097.

Hedrick, J.B., 1987b, Rare-earth minerals and metals, in Metals and minerals: U.S. Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook 

1985, v. I, p. 741–803.

Leigh, G.J., ed., 1990, Nomenclature of inorganic chemistry—Recommendations 1990: Oxford, Blackwell Scientific 

Publications, 289 p.

Mosander, C.G., 1827, Einiges über das Cerium [Something 

about cerium]: Liepzig, Germany, Annalen der Physik, 

(Poggendorff), v. 11, p. 406–416.

Tse, Pui-Kwan, 2011, China’s rare-earth industry: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2011–1042, 

11 p., available only at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2011/1042/

of2011-1042.pdf.

Weeks, M.E., and Leicester, H.M., 1968, Discovery of the 

elements (7th ed.): Easton, Pa., Journal of Chemical 

Education, 896 p.
Rare-Earth Metals (Ce, Dy, Eu, Gd, La, Nd, Pr, Sm, Sc, Tb, Y) 135

Figure 2. Rare-Earth Metals—Yearend dysprosium metal price.

Figure 1. Rare-Earth Metals—Yearend cerium metal price.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Dollars per kilogram

Year 

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Dollars per kilogram

Year

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION
136 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Dollars per kilogram

Year

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION

Figure 3. Rare-Earth Metals—Yearend europium metal price.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2007 2008 2009 2010

Dollars per kilogram

Year

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION

Figure 4. Rare-Earth Metals—Yearend gadolinium metal price.
Rare-Earth Metals (Ce, Dy, Eu, Gd, La, Nd, Pr, Sm, Sc, Tb, Y) 137

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Dollars per kilogram

Year

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION

Figure 5. Rare-Earth Metals—Yearend lanthanum metal price.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Dollars per kilogram

Year

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION

Figure 6. Rare-Earth Metals—Yearend neodymium metal price.
138 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Dollars per kilogram

Year

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION

Figure 7. Rare-Earth Metals—Yearend praesodymium metal price.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Dollars per kilogram

Year

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION

Figure 8. Rare-Earth Metals—Yearend samarium metal price.
Rare-Earth Metals (Ce, Dy, Eu, Gd, La, Nd, Pr, Sm, Sc, Tb, Y) 139

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Dollars per kilogram

Year

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION

Figure 9. Rare-Earth Metals—Yearend scandium metal price.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Dollars per kilogram

Year

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION

Figure 10. Rare-Earth Metals—Yearend terbium metal price.
140 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Dollars per kilogram

Year

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION

Figure 11. Rare-Earth Metals—Yearend yttrium metal price.

Significant events affecting rare-earth metal prices since 1970

1971–78 Stable supply and demand

1979–81 Economic recession

1984 Scandium import supply cut by Soviet Union

1985 U.S. environmental regulations limited lead in gasoline, reducing demand for rare-earth-containing petroleum 

fluid-cracking catalysts; startup of domestic scandium production; mine production of other rare earths declined 

by 50 percent

1980–90s Increased production from China and increased demand for permanent magnets, automotive catalytic converters, 

and rechargeable batteries

1990 China's Government declared rare earths and strategic materials to be protected and began regulating production 

and trade

2002 Mountain Pass, Calif., rare-earth mine closed, leaving China as the dominant world supplier

2010 China sharply curtailed rare-earth exports
Rare-Earth Metals (Ce, Dy, Eu, Gd, La, Nd, Pr, Sm, Sc, Tb, Y) 141

Table 1. Rare-Earth Metals—Yearend cerium metal price.

[Values in dollars per kilogram. NA Not available]

Year Price

1959 330.00

1960 330.00

1961 330.00

1962 330.00

1963 304.24

1964 160.94

1965 174.17

1966 165.35

1967 154.32

1968 154.32

1969 110.23

1970 88.18

1971 88.18

Year Price

1972 88.18

1973 88.18

1974 88.18

1975 88.18

1976 88.18

1977 88.18

1978 88.18

1979 108.00

1980 115.00

1981 125.00

1982 125.00

1983 125.00

1984 125.00

Year Price

1985 125.00

1986 175.00

1987 175.00

1988 175.00

1989 175.00

1990 175.00

1991 175.00

1992 350.00

1993 350.00

1994 350.00

1995 350.00

1996 350.00

1997 350.00

Year Price

1998 350.00

1999 NA

2000 NA

2001 5.40

2002 4.30

2003 3.50

2004 3.50

2005 4.75

2006 4.70

2007 8.80

2008 7.05

2009 7.85

2010 51.50

Notes:

1959–62, 100- to 450-gram metal ingot prices, 99.9-percent nominal purity, provided by American Potash & Chemical Corp.

1963, 1- to 4-pound metal ingot prices, 99.9-percent nominal purity, provided by American Potash & Chemical Corp.

1964, 1967–78, 2- to 10-pound metal ingot price, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals.

1965–66, 1- to 5-pound metal ingot price, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals.

1979–88, 1-kilogram metal ingot, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals.

1989–94, 1-kilogram metal ingots, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Rhône-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co.

1995–97, 1- to 5-kilogram cast metal ingots, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Rhône-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co.

1998, 1- to 5-kilogram cast metal ingots, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Rhodia, Inc.

2001–10, minimum 99-percent-pure metal, free on board China, provided by Metal-Pages Ltd.
142 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

Table 2. Rare-Earth Metals—Yearend dysprosium metal price.

[Values in dollars per kilogram. NA Not available]

Year Price

1959 730.00

1960 730.00

1961 730.00

1962 730.00

1963 661.39

1964 526.90

1965 559.97

1966 275.58

1967 341.72

1968 341.72

1969 308.65

1970 308.65

1971 264.55

Year Price

1972 264.55

1973 264.55

1974 264.55

1975 264.00

1976 264.55

1977 264.55

1978 264.55

1979 270.00

1980 300.00

1981 300.00

1982 300.00

1983 300.00

1984 300.00

Year Price

1985 300.00

1986 630.00

1987 630.00

1988 630.00

1989 500.00

1990 500.00

1991 500.00

1992 500.00

1993 500.00

1994 500.00

1995 500.00

1996 500.00

1997 500.00

Year Price

1998 500.00

1999 NA

2000 NA

2001 37.00

2002 28.00

2003 32.00

2004 50.00

2005 70.00

2006 100.00

2007 123.00

2008 144.50

2009 147.50

2010 400.00

Notes:

1959–62, 100- to 450-gram metal ingot prices, 99.9-percent nominal purity, provided by American Potash & Chemical Corp.

1963, 1- to 4-pound metal ingot prices, 99.9-percent nominal purity, provided by American Potash & Chemical Corp. 

1964, 1967–78, 2- to 10-pound metal ingot price, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals.

1965, “over 1 pound” metal ingot prices, provided by Research Chemicals.

1966, 1- to 5-pound metal ingot price, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals.

1979–88, 1-kilogram metal ingot, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals.

1989–94, 1-kilogram metal ingots, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Rhône-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co.

1995–97, 1- to 5-kilogram cast metal ingots, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Rhône-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co.

1998, 1- to 5-kilogram cast metal ingots, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Rhodia, Inc.

2001–10, minimum 99-percent-pure metal, free on board China, provided by Metal-Pages Ltd.
Rare-Earth Metals (Ce, Dy, Eu, Gd, La, Nd, Pr, Sm, Sc, Tb, Y) 143

Table 3. Rare-Earth Metals—Yearend europium metal price.

[Values in dollars per kilogram. NA Not available]

Year Price

1959 9,250.00

1960 9,250.00

1961 9,250.00

1962 9,250.00

1963 3,306.93

1964 4,645.14

1965 11,023.11

1966 11,023.11

1967 7,936.64

1968 7,936.64

1969 7,054.79

1970 7,054.79

1971 5,952.48

Year Price

1972 5,952.48

1973 5,952.48

1974 5,952.48

1975 5,952.48

1976 5,952.48

1977 5,952.48

1978 5,952.48

1979 6,500.00

1980 7,000.00

1981 7,500.00

1982 7,500.00

1983 7,500.00

1984 7,500.00

Year Price

1985 7,500.00

1986 7,600.00

1987 7,600.00

1988 7,600.00

1989 7,600.00

1990 7,600.00

1991 7,600.00

1992 7,600.00

1993 7,600.00

1994 7,600.00

1995 5,600.00

1996 5,600.00

1997 5,600.00

Year Price

1998 6,500.00

1999 NA

2000 NA

2001 1,050.00

2002 650.00

2003 560.00

2004 560.00

2005 550.00

2006 450.00

2007 585.00

2008 785.00

2009 785.00

2010 785.00

Notes:

1959–62, 100- to 450-gram metal ingot prices, 99.9-percent nominal purity, provided by American Potash & Chemical Corp.

1963, 1- to 4-pound metal ingot prices, 99.9-percent nominal purity, provided by American Potash & Chemical Corp. 

1964, 1- to 2-pound metal ingot prices, 99.9-percent nominal purity, provided by Research Chemicals.

1965–66, 1- to 5-pound metal ingot price, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals.

1967–78, 2- to 10-pound metal ingot price, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals.

1979–88, 1-kilogram metal ingot, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals.

1989–94, 1-kilogram metal ingots, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Rhône-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co.

1995–97, 1- to 5-kilogram cast metal ingots, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Rhône-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co.

1998, 1- to 5-kilogram cast metal ingots, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Rhodia, Inc.

2001–10, minimum 99-percent-pure metal, free on board China, provided by Metal-Pages Ltd.
144 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

Table 4. Rare-Earth Metals—Yearend gadolinium metal price.

[Values in dollars per kilogram. NA Not available]

Year Price

1959 730.00

1960 730.00

1961 730.00

1962 730.00

1963 462.97

1964 568.79

1965 537.93

1966 551.16

1967 507.06

1968 507.06

1969 485.02

1970 485.02

1971 462.97

Year Price

1972 462.97

1973 462.97

1974 462.97

1975 462.97

1976 462.97

1977 462.97

1978 462.97

1979 430.00

1980 440.00

1981 485.00

1982 485.00

1983 485.00

1984 485.00

Year Price

1985 485.00

1986 500.00

1987 500.00

1988 500.00

1989 500.00

1990 500.00

1991 500.00

1992 500.00

1993 500.00

1994 500.00

1995 500.00

1996 500.00

1997 500.00

Year Price

1998 400.00

1999 NA

2000 NA

2001 NA

2002 NA

2003 NA

2004 NA

2005 NA

2006 NA

2007 29.75

2008 20.25

2009 18.25

2010 54.50

Notes:

1959–62, 100- to 450-gram metal ingot prices, 99.9-percent nominal purity, provided by American Potash & Chemical Corp.

1963, 1- to 4-pound metal ingot prices, 99.9-percent nominal purity, provided by American Potash & Chemical Corp. 

1964, 1967–78, 2- to 10-pound metal ingot price, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals.

1965, “over 1 pound” metal ingot prices, provided by Research Chemicals.

1966, 1- to 5-pound metal ingot price, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals.

1979–88, 1-kilogram metal ingot, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals.

1989–94, 1-kilogram metal ingots, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Rhône-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co.

1995–97, 1- to 5-kilogram cast metal ingots, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Rhône-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co.

1998, 1- to 5-kilogram cast metal ingots, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Rhodia, Inc.

2007–10, minimum 99-percent-pure metal, free on board China, provided by Metal-Pages Ltd.
Rare-Earth Metals (Ce, Dy, Eu, Gd, La, Nd, Pr, Sm, Sc, Tb, Y) 145

Table 5. Rare-Earth Metals—Yearend lanthanum metal price.

[Values in dollars per kilogram. NA Not available]

Year Price

1959 340.00

1960 340.00

1961 340.00

1962 340.00

1963 308.65

1964 160.94

1965 189.60

1966 165.35

1967 154.32

1968 154.32

1969 110.23

1970 110.23

1971 88.18

Year Price

1972 88.18

1973 88.18

1974 88.18

1975 88.18

1976 88.18

1977 88.18

1978 88.18

1979 108.00

1980 115.00

1981 125.00

1982 125.00

1983 125.00

1984 125.00

Year Price

1985 125.00

1986 150.00

1987 150.00

1988 150.00

1989 150.00

1990 150.00

1991 150.00

1992 150.00

1993 150.00

1994 150.00

1995 350.00

1996 350.00

1997 350.00

Year Price

1998 350.00

1999 NA

2000 NA

2001 4.10

2002 3.30

2003 3.20

2004 3.50

2005 4.05

2006 4.25

2007 7.60

2008 11.25

2009 10.05

2010 60.50

Notes:

1959–62, 100- to 450-gram metal ingot prices, 99.9-percent nominal purity, provided by American Potash & Chemical Corp.

1963, 1- to 4-pound metal ingot prices, 99.9-percent nominal purity, provided by American Potash & Chemical Corp. 

1964, 1967–78, 2- to 10-pound metal ingot price, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals.

1965–66, 1- to 5-pound metal ingot price, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals.

1979–88, 1-kilogram metal ingot, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals.

1989–94, 1-kilogram metal ingots, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Rhône-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co.

1995–97, 1- to 5-kilogram cast metal ingots, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Rhône-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co.

1998, 1- to 5-kilogram cast metal ingots, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Rhodia, Inc.

2001–10, minimum 99-percent-pure metal, free on board China, provided by Metal-Pages Ltd.
146 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

Table 6. Rare-Earth Metals—Yearend neodymium metal price.

[Values in dollars per kilogram. NA Not available]

Year Price

1959 420.00

1960 420.00

1961 420.00

1962 420.00

1963 385.81

1964 348.33

1965 370.38

1966 330.69

1967 253.53

1968 253.53

1969 220.46

1970 242.51

1971 220.46

Year Price

1972 220.46

1973 220.46

1974 220.46

1975 220.46

1976 220.46

1977 220.46

1978 220.46

1979 250.00

1980 260.00

1981 260.00

1982 260.00

1983 260.00

1984 260.00

Year Price

1985 260.00

1986 280.00

1987 280.00

1988 280.00

1989 340.00

1990 340.00

1991 340.00

1992 340.00

1993 340.00

1994 340.00

1995 450.00

1996 450.00

1997 450.00

Year Price

1998 450.00

1999 NA

2000 NA

2001 7.40

2002 6.60

2003 6.40

2004 8.20

2005 12.50

2006 28.55

2007 34.75

2008 18.50

2009 29.50

2010 113.50

Notes:

1959–62, 100- to 450-gram metal ingot prices, 99.9-percent nominal purity, provided by American Potash & Chemical Corp.

1963, 1- to 4-pound metal ingot prices, 99.9-percent nominal purity, provided by American Potash & Chemical Corp. 

1964, 1967–78, 2- to 10-pound metal ingot price, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals.

1965–66, 1- to 5-pound metal ingot price, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals.

1979–88, 1-kilogram metal ingot, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals.

1989–97, 1- to 5-kilogram cast metal ingots, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Rhône-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co.

1998, 1- to 5-kilogram cast metal ingots, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Rhodia, Inc.

2001–10, minimum 99-percent-pure metal, free on board China, provided by Metal-Pages Ltd.
Rare-Earth Metals (Ce, Dy, Eu, Gd, La, Nd, Pr, Sm, Sc, Tb, Y) 147

Table 7. Rare-Earth Metals—Yearend praseodymium metal price.

[Values in dollars per kilogram. NA Not available]

Year Price

1959 420.00

1960 420.00

1961 420.00

1962 420.00

1963 385.81

1964 412.26

1965 401.24

1966 407.86

1967 385.81

1968 385.81

1969 374.79

1970 374.79

1971 352.74

Year Price

1972 352.74

1973 352.74

1974 352.74

1975 352.74

1976 352.74

1977 352.74

1978 352.74

1979 290.00

1980 310.00

1981 310.00

1982 310.00

1983 310.00

1984 310.00

Year Price

1985 310.00

1986 400.00

1987 400.00

1988 400.00

1989 540.00

1990 540.00

1991 540.00

1992 540.00

1993 540.00

1994 540.00

1995 540.00

1996 540.00

1997 540.00

Year Price

1998 540.00

1999 NA

2000 NA

2001 6.40

2002 6.20

2003 7.30

2004 11.00

2005 13.50

2006 25.75

2007 34.25

2008 18.50

2009 29.50

2010 111.50

Notes:

1959–62, 100- to 450-gram metal ingot prices, 99.9-percent nominal purity, provided by American Potash & Chemical Corp.

1963, 1- to 4-pound metal ingot prices, 99.9-percent nominal purity, provided by American Potash & Chemical Corp. 

1964, 1967–78, 2- to 10-pound metal ingot price, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals.

1965–66, 1- to 5-pound metal ingot price, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals.

1979–88, 1-kilogram metal ingot, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals.

1989–97, 1- to 5-kilogram cast metal ingots, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Rhône-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co.

1998, 1- to 5-kilogram cast metal ingots, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Rhodia, Inc.

2001–10, minimum 99-percent-pure metal, free on board China, provided by Metal-Pages Ltd.
148 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

Table 8. Rare-Earth Metals—Yearend samarium metal price.

[Values in dollars per kilogram. NA Not available]

Year Price

1959 440.00

1960 440.00

1961 440.00

1962 440.00

1963 396.83

1964 407.86

1965 687.84

1966 485.02

1967 352.74

1968 352.74

1969 308.65

1970 319.67

1971 297.62

Year Price

1972 297.62

1973 297.62

1974 297.62

1975 297.62

1976 297.62

1977 297.62

1978 297.62

1979 280.00

1980 300.00

1981 330.00

1982 330.00

1983 330.00

1984 330.00

Year Price

1985 330.00

1986 395.00

1987 395.00

1988 395.00

1989 395.00

1990 340.00

1991 340.00

1992 300.00

1993 300.00

1994 300.00

1995 300.00

1996 300.00

1997 300.00

Year Price

1998 300.00

1999 NA

2000 NA

2001 16.00

2002 11.50

2003 11.30

2004 12.00

2005 10.75

2006 11.75

2007 14.95

2008 20.75

2009 20.75

2010 60.50

Notes:

1959–62, 100- to 450-gram metal ingot prices, 99.9-percent nominal purity, provided by American Potash & Chemical Corp.

1963, 1- to 4-pound metal ingot prices, 99.9-percent nominal purity, provided by American Potash & Chemical Corp. 

1964, 1967–78, 2- to 10-pound metal ingot price, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals.

1965, “over 1 pound” metal ingot prices, provided by Research Chemicals.

1966, 1- to 5-pound metal ingot price, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals.

1979–88, 1-kilogram metal ingot, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals.

1989–94, 1-kilogram metal ingots, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Rhône-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co.

1995–97, 2- to 5-kilogram cast metal ingots, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Rhône-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co.

1998, 2- to 5-kilogram cast metal ingots, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Rhodia, Inc.

2001–10, minimum 99-percent-pure metal, free on board China, provided by Metal-Pages Ltd.
Rare-Earth Metals (Ce, Dy, Eu, Gd, La, Nd, Pr, Sm, Sc, Tb, Y) 149

Table 9. Rare-Earth Metals—Yearend scandium metal price.

[Values in dollars per kilogram]

Year Price

1962 35,000.00

1963 35,000.00

1964 11,889.53

1965 10,000.00

1966 10,000.00

1967 7,936.64

1968 7,936.64

1969 7,936.64

1970 7,936.64

1971 6,172.94

1972 6,172.94

1973 6,172.94

1974 6,172.94

Year Price

1975 6,172.94

1976 6,172.94

1977 6,172.94

1978 6,172.94

1979 6,600.00

1980 7,200.00

1981 8,000.00

1982 11,000.00

1983 11,000.00

1984 75,000.00

1985 30,000.00

1986 25,000.00

1987 25,000.00

Year Price

1988 25,000.00

1989 21,500.00

1990 12,000.00

1991 8,400.00

1992 10,000.00

1993 10,000.00

1994 10,000.00

1995 18,000.00

1996 18,000.00

1997 18,000.00

1998 18,000.00

1999 175,000.00

2000 175,000.00

Year Price

2001 198,000.00

2002 198,000.00

2003 119,000.00

2004 124,000.00

2005 131,000.00

2006 131,000.00

2007 131,000.00

2008 152,000.00

2009 155,000.00

2010 158,000.00

Notes:

1962, 1-pound metal ingot prices, 99.5+-percent purity, provided by Atomergic Chemetals, Div. of Gallard Schlesinger.

1963, 100- to 400-gram metal ingot prices, 99.5+-percent purity, provided by Atomergic Chemetals, Div. of Gallard Schlesinger.

1964, 1971–78, 1- to 2-pound metal ingot price, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals.

1965–66, 227- to 454-gram metal ingot price, provided by Research Chemicals.

1967–70, 1989–92, 2- to 10-pound metal ingot price, provided by Research Chemicals.

1979–88, 1-kilogram metal ingot, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals.

1989–94, 1-kilogram metal ingots, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Rhône-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co.

1995–97, 1- to 5-kilogram cast metal ingots, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Rhône-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co.

1998, 1- to 5-kilogram cast metal ingots, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Rhodia, Inc.

1999–2010, Metal ingot pieces, 99.9-percent purity, provided by Alfa Aesar, a Johnson Matthey company.
150 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

Table 10. Rare-Earth Metals—Yearend terbium metal price.

[Values in dollars per kilogram. NA Not available]

Year Price

1959 3,750.00

1960 3,750.00

1961 3,750.00

1962 3,750.00

1963 2,314.85

1964 2,843.96

1965 2,411.86

1966 2,425.08

1967 1,895.98

1968 1,895.98

1969 1,543.24

1970 1,543.24

1971 1,543.24

Year Price

1972 1,543.24

1973 1,543.24

1974 1,807.79

1975 1,807.79

1976 1,807.79

1977 1,807.79

1978 1,807.79

1979 2,000.00

1980 2,300.00

1981 2,800.00

1982 2,800.00

1983 2,800.00

1984 2,800.00

Year Price

1985 2,800.00

1986 2,800.00

1987 2,800.00

1988 2,800.00

1989 2,800.00

1990 2,800.00

1991 2,800.00

1992 2,800.00

1993 2,800.00

1994 2,800.00

1995 2,200.00

1996 2,200.00

1997 2,200.00

Year Price

1998 1,300.00

1999 NA

2000 NA

2001 230.00

2002 180.00

2003 238.00

2004 430.00

2005 430.00

2006 660.00

2007 750.00

2008 600.00

2009 540.00

2010 770.00

Notes:

1959–62, 100- to 450-gram metal ingot prices, 99.9-percent nominal purity, provided by American Potash & Chemical Corp.

1963, 1- to 4-pound metal ingot prices, 99.9-percent nominal purity, provided by American Potash & Chemical Corp. 

1964, 1- to 2-pound metal ingot prices, 99.9-percent nominal purity, provided by Research Chemicals.

1965, “over 1 pound” metal ingot prices, provided by Research Chemicals.

1966, 1- to 5-pound metal ingot price, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals.

1967–78, 2- to 10-pound metal ingot price, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals.

1979–88, 1-kilogram metal ingot, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals.

1989–94, 1-kilogram metal ingots, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Rhône-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co.

1995–97, 1- to 5-kilogram cast metal ingots, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Rhône-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co.

1998, 1- to 5-kilogram cast metal ingots, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Rhodia, Inc.

2001–10, minimum 99-percent-pure metal, free on board China, provided by Metal-Pages Ltd.
Rare-Earth Metals (Ce, Dy, Eu, Gd, La, Nd, Pr, Sm, Sc, Tb, Y) 151

Table 11. Rare-Earth Metals—Yearend yttrium metal price.

[Values in dollars per kilogram. NA Not available]

Year Price

1959 540.00

1960 540.00

1961 540.00

1962 540.00

1963 716.50

1964 654.77

1965 449.74

1966 396.83

1967 352.74

1968 352.74

1969 319.67

1970 352.74

1971 308.65

Year Price

1972 308.65

1973 308.65

1974 308.65

1975 308.65

1976 308.65

1977 308.65

1978 308.65

1979 320.00

1980 390.00

1981 430.00

1982 430.00

1983 430.00

1984 430.00

Year Price

1985 510.00

1986 510.00

1987 510.00

1988 510.00

1989 510.00

1990 340.00

1991 340.00

1992 340.00

1993 340.00

1994 340.00

1995 450.00

1996 450.00

1997 450.00

Year Price

1998 450.00

1999 NA

2000 NA

2001 56.00

2002 29.00

2003 29.50

2004 26.00

2005 26.00

2006 24.00

2007 41.00

2008 40.00

2009 40.00

2010 78.00

Notes:

1959–62, 100- to 450-gram metal ingot prices, 99.9-percent nominal purity, provided by American Potash & Chemical Corp.

1963, 1- to 4-pound metal ingot prices, 99.9-percent nominal purity, provided by American Potash & Chemical Corp. 

1964, 1967–78, 2- to 10-pound metal ingot price, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals.

1965–66, 1- to 5-pound metal ingot price, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals.

1979–88, 1-kilogram metal ingot, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals.

1989–94, 1-kilogram metal ingots, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Rhône-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co.

1995–97, 1- to 5-kilogram cast metal ingots, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Rhône-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co.

1998, 1- to 5-kilogram cast metal ingots, from 99.9-percent-grade oxides, provided by Rhodia, Inc.

2001–10, minimum 99-percent-pure metal, free on board China, provided by Metal-Pages Ltd.
152 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

Rhenium (Re)

by Désirée E. Polyak

Ida (Tache) and Walter Noddack, German chemists, 

are generally credited with the discovery of rhenium in 

1925 (Habashi, 1997). The total cost for producing the first 

gram of rhenium in 1928 was estimated to be $15,000. At 

the University of Tennessee in 1942, A.D. Melaven and 

J.A. Bacon developed a process for extracting the element 

from the dust that accumulated in roasting molybdenum ore. 

A plant in Tennessee was the only rhenium producer in the 

United States for many years and had a total output of several 

hundred pounds of the metal and its salts each year (Sutulov, 

1976, p. 206).

In 1942, the price of the metal in the United States was 

$14 per gram; in Germany, however, the price reportedly was 

$4 per gram. The price of rhenium decreased from $14 per 

gram in 1942 to $1.99 per gram in 1951 as techniques for 

extraction were improved (table 1). From 1951 through 1954, 

interest in rhenium uses was stimulated by research associated 

with the Korean conflict. Consequently, demand increased 

and the average price of rhenium in 1952 was $2.18 per gram. 

From 1954 through 1969, prices stabilized as new uses for 

rhenium were developed—additions of rhenium increase the 

corrosion resistance of stainless steel; the nuclear properties 

of rhenium offer potential as a reactor-shielding material for 

thermal neutrons; and the inherent brittleness of tungsten and 

molybdenum is inhibited and ductility improved by alloying 

with rhenium. In 1968, rhenium usage in alloy applications 

decreased as Atomic Energy Commission programs were 

completed. This decrease was reversed by the development of 

rhenium and rhenium-platinum catalysts used in the cracking 

of petroleum hydrocarbons (National Research Council, 1968, 

p. 4). The use in catalysts reached a high of 75 percent of the 

demand for rhenium, resulting in an average of $2.64 per gram 

in 1971, as demand exceeded supply. The price declined to 

$0.77 per gram in 1978 because the supply and demand were 

balanced (fig. 1). In 1980, the rhenium price increased to $3.58 

per gram as a result of increased demand related to the doubling of the rhenium in the reforming catalysts used to produce 

unleaded gasoline (Millensifer, 1997). The price decreased to 

$0.84 per gram in 1982, with the advent of recessionary conditions. The price continued to decrease to $0.55 per gram in 

1984, and then it increased to $0.89 per gram in 1987. 

In 1988, the price increased to $1.47 per gram as a result 

of demand for new alloys used in turbine engines for aircrafts. 

This introduction of rhenium-bearing superalloys started to 

change the pattern of demand. This was reinforced in the early 

1990s by the development of a new generation of superalloys. 

Demand for rhenium saw a particularly sharp increase in 1998 

when Cannon-Muskegon, the leading rhenium superalloy 

producer and the world’s single largest consumer of rhenium, 

announced a 100-percent increase in the rhenium content of its 

alloys, from 3 percent to 6 percent. 

The demand for rhenium continued to increase into the 

21st century owing to the development of new superalloys 

containing rhenium for use in aircraft engines and groundbased gas turbines. Rhenium production was not able to match 

demand, causing prices to rapidly increase in a tight supply 

situation. 

Rhenium prices rose sharply starting in mid-2006, as 

demand for the aerospace industry began to increase dramatically and the rhenium industry was unable to meet the 

demand. Prices peaked at $10.40 per gram in 2008, and 

decreased in 2009 to $7.50 per gram. Prices did not fall to the 

lows experienced in the mid-1990s.

The market for rhenium is small. Therefore, sudden 

changes in the supply-demand balance have a very marked 

effect on prices. Most primary rhenium produced is supplied 

to a relatively small number of customers. These are mostly 

companies in the petroleum catalysts and superalloys sectors 

that buy rhenium under fixed price and fixed term contracts, 

the details of which are not made public. These contracts 

allow major consumers some measure of security owing to the 

large and often sudden movements of the rhenium market that 

have characterized the industry over the last 30 years (Roskill 

Information Services Ltd., 2010, p. 124).

References Cited

Habashi, Fathi, 1997, Rhenium seventy years old, in Byrskin, B.D., ed., 1997, Rhenium and rhenium alloys—

International Symposium on Rhenium and Rhenium 

Alloys, February 9–13, 1997, Orlando, Fla., Proceedings: 

Warrendale, Pa., The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society, 

p. 15–36.

Millensifer, T.A., 1997, Rhenium background and markets, in

Byrskin, B.D., ed., 1997, Rhenium and rhenium alloys—

International Symposium on Rhenium and Rhenium 

Alloys, February 9–13, 1997, Orlando, Fla., Proceedings: 

Warrendale, Pa., The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society, 

p. 37–47.

National Research Council, 1968, Trends in usage of 

rhenium—A report by the Materials Advisory Board: 

National Academy of Sciences/National Academy of 

Engineering, MAB–251, Washington, D.C., December, 9 p.
Rhenium (Re) 153

Roskill Information Services Ltd., 2010, Rhenium—Market 

outlook to 2015 (8th ed.): London, United Kingdom, 

Roskill Information Services Ltd., 130 p.

Sutulov, Alexander, 1976, Molybdenum and rhenium 1778–

1977: Concepción, Chile, University of Concepción, 257 p.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Dollars per gram

Year

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION

Figure 1. U.S. rhenium metal price.

Significant events affecting rhenium prices since 1970

1970 Start of rhenium use in catalysts to make unleaded gasoline

1980 Doubling of percentage of rhenium in catalysts used to make unleaded gasoline

1988 Introduction of rhenium-bearing superalloys

1991 Dissolution of the Soviet Union

2006–08 Rhenium prices increase in response to greater demand from the aerospace industry

2008–09 Global financial crisis, prices decline
154 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

Table 1. U.S. rhenium metal powder price.

[Values in dollars per gram. NA Not available]

Year Price

1942 14.00

1943 10.00

1944 6.50

1945 4.50

1946 3.25

1947 NA

1948 NA

1949 NA

1950 NA

1951 1.99

1952 2.18

1953 2.11

1954 1.43

1955 1.50

1956 1.49

1957 1.46

1958 1.45

1959 1.43

Year Price

1960 1.50

1961 1.35

1962 1.33

1963 1.28

1964 1.46

1965 1.50

1966 1.35

1967 1.33

1968 1.28

1969 1.46

1970 2.31

1971 2.65

1972 2.20

1973 1.98

1974 1.65

1975 1.32

1976 1.16

1977 1.05

Year Price

1978 0.77

1979 2.09

1980 3.31

1981 1.31

1982 0.90

1983 0.66

1984 0.66

1985 0.66

1986 0.77

1987 1.10

1988 1.54

1989 1.54

1990 1.50

1991 1.50

1992 1.50

1993 1.50

1994 1.56

1995 1.10

Year Price

1996 0.90

1997 0.90

1998 1.20

1999 1.30

2000 1.40

2001 1.50

2002 1.40

2003 1.30

2004 1.00

2005 1.10

2006 5.50

2007 8.50

2008 10.40

2009 7.50

2010 4.72

Notes:

1942–69, in U.S. Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook.

1970–2010, in U.S. Bureau of Mines Commodity Data Summaries (1970–77), Mineral Commodity Summaries (1978–96), and U.S. Geological Survey Mineral 

Commodity Summaries (1996–97); price based on U.S. Census Bureau customs value.

1998–2010, Price of metal pellets, minimum 99-percent-pure in Metal Bulletin.
Rubidium (Rb) 155

Rubidium (Rb)

by William E. Brooks

Rubidium was discovered in 1861 by means of an optical 

spectroscope but had extremely limited industrial use until the 

1920s (Perel’man, 1965; Wagner, 1993, p. 591). Small quantities of rubidium-containing minerals were mined in the United 

States prior to the mid-1960s, but rubidium is no longer mined 

domestically. Historically, the most important use for rubidium 

has been in research and development, primarily in chemical 

and electronic applications.

Owing to the small size of the industry, quoted rubidium 

prices are for those of individual companies. The price varies 

directly with the purity of the material and inversely with 

the quantity purchased, and the metal has been marketed in 

purities ranging from 99.5 percent to 99.8 percent. The annual 

prices presented in the graph and table may not be comparable 

from year to year owing to differences in purities, quantity 

of material purchased, and (or) the source of the price (fig. 1; 

table 1). For example, prior to 1963, most of the prices published in the U.S. Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook were 

for purchases of less than 1 pound of rubidium metal. Some 

pre-1963 prices, along with the prices published for 1963 

through 1988, were for the purchase of at least 1 pound of 

rubidium metal. The price when buying 1 pound of metal is 

significantly lower than the other prices, owing to discounts 

for the large quantity purchased. For this report, prices were 

subsequently converted to a per-gram equivalent. The prices 

for 1992 through 2002 represent the price charged for a 

1-gram ampoule of 99.8-percent-pure rubidium metal, whereas 

prices for 2003 through 2010 represent the price charged for a 

1-gram ampoule of 99.75-percent-pure rubidium metal.

References Cited

Wagner, F.S., 1993, Rubidium and rubidium compounds, in

Ullmann’s encyclopedia of industrial chemistry (4th ed.): 

Weinheim, Germany, VCH Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, v. 21, 

p. 591–600.

Perel’man, F.M., 1965, Rubidium and caesium: New York, 

The Macmillan Co., 144 p.
156 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Dollars per gram

Year

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION

Figure 1. Average annual rubidium price.
Rubidium (Rb) 157

Table 1. Annual average primary rubidium price.

[Values in dollars per gram. NA Not available]

Year Price

1959 2.26

1960 0.86

1961 1.00

1962 1.00

1963 0.90

1964 0.90

1965 0.63

1966 NA

1967 0.63

1968 0.63

1969 0.66

1970 0.66

1971 0.66

Year Price

1972 0.66

1973 0.66

1974 0.66

1975 0.66

1976 NA

1977 0.61

1978 NA

1979 0.61

1980 0.74

1981 0.74

1982 0.74

1983 0.74

1984 0.74

Year Price

1985 0.74

1986 0.74

1987 0.74

1988 0.74

1989 0.74

1990 0.74

1991 0.74

1992 40.00

1993 40.00

1994 40.00

1995 42.40

1996 42.40

1997 45.40

Year Price

1998 76.60

1999 77.98

2000 75.40

2001 47.86

2002 47.12

2003 47.93

2004 48.75

2005 47.16

2006 47.06

2007 45.75

2008 46.03

2009 51.97

2010 52.33

Notes: The data in the table above were compiled from information in various U.S. Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbooks, U.S. Bureau of Mines Mineral 

Commodity Summaries, and U.S. Geological Survey Mineral Commodity Summaries. It is believed that the data in the previously mentioned publication 

represents, and (or) were obtained from the following sources:

1959, Average of the price for purities ranging from 99.0 percent to 99.8 percent attributed to American Potash & Chemical Corp. & Penn Rare Metals Co.

1960, 99+-percent-pure rubidium metal, 10-pound lots.

1961–62, MSA Research Corp. 99.0-percent-pure rubidium metal, 50-gram lots.

1963–64, Average of the range of prices for 99+-percent-pure rubidium metal, in American Metal Market.

1965, Average of the range of prices for 99.5-percent-pure rubidium, 1- to 9-pound lots attributed to the Penn Rare Metals Division of Kawecki Chemical Co.

1967–68, Average of the range of prices for 99.5-percent-pure rubidium, 1- to 9-pound lots attributed to the Penn Rare Metals Division of Kawecki 

Chemical Co.

1969–75, U.S. Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook citation for 99.5+-percent-pure rubidium metal.

1977, Average of the range of prices for 99.5-percent-pure rubidium metal attributed to unidentified industry sources.

1979, Average of the range of prices for 99.5-percent-pure rubidium metal attributed to unidentified industry sources.

1980–85, KBI Division, Cabot Corp., average of the yearend price for technical- and high-purity-grade rubidium metal.

1986–88, KBI Division, Cabot Corp., average of the yearend price for technical- and high-purity-grade rubidium metal in lots under 50 pounds.

1989–91, KBI Division, Cabot Corp.

1992–2002, Alfa Aesar and other chemical catalogs. Prices for purchases of 99.8-percent-pure rubidium metal in 1-gram ampoules.

2003–10, Alfa Aesar and other chemical catalogs. Prices for purchases of 99.75-percent-pure rubidium metal in 1-gram ampoules.
158 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

Selenium (Se)

by Micheal W. George 

The discovery of selenium is credited to J.J. Berzelius, 

who isolated it in 1817 from the red residue found in sulfuric 

acid prepared at the pyrite mining operation at Fahlun, Sweden 

(Carapella, 1984, p. 842). For almost a century, selenium was 

merely a scientific curiosity, until its use as a pigment in the 

manufacture of red glass, ceramics, and glazes was established 

in 1910 (Hess, 1911). Prices for selenium prior to that time are 

not generally available. Commercial quantities of selenium 

were and still are recovered as a byproduct of the electrolytic 

refining of copper, where it accumulates in anode residues 

(Hoffman, 1984, p. 495–516).

During World War I, selenium production and demand 

grew rapidly owing to the increased demand for red glass and 

the development of selenium as a replacement for manganese 

dioxide as a decolorizer in clear glass. Domestic production 

rose rapidly from about 5 metric tons (t) in 1910 to about 50 t 

in 1918. Although domestic production of selenium fluctuated 

markedly from year to year, it continued to increase, reaching a peak of 565 t in 1969, during the Vietnam War. Disruptions to copper production, changing technology, and variable 

demand contributed to year-to-year fluctuations in production. 

From 1970 through 1980, domestic production fell markedly, 

with imports accounting for an increasing share of domestic 

demand. Domestic production of selenium was about 141 t in 

1980 and increased to roughly 250 t in 1985, 287 t in 1990, 

and 373 t in 1995. 

As calculated from domestic shipments plus net imports, 

apparent consumption of selenium from 1928 to 2001 fluctuated markedly from year to year during this period owing to 

economic cycles, military engagements, technical developments, and consumer stockpiling. Growth in consumption was 

driven by the development of new uses, including applications 

in rubber compounding, steel alloying, and selenium rectifiers. Consumption generally increased through 1969 when it 

peaked at almost 900 t owing mainly to defense requirements. 

By 1970, selenium in rectifiers had largely been replaced by 

silicon, but its use as a photoconductor in plain-paper copiers 

had become its leading application. The U.S Government had 

stockpiled selenium metal because it was critical for selenium 

rectifiers, which were important for military applications. By 

1974, U.S. Government stocks, which had reached a peak of 

181 t in 1963, were liquidated. Apparent consumption fell 

to less than 350 t in 1980 but rose to a fairly stable range of 

about 500 metric tons per year (t/yr) from 1990 through 1996. 

During the 1980s, the photoconductor application declined as 

copiers increasingly used organic photoconductors. Despite 

substitution for selenium in photoreceptors in the late 1980s, 

demand from glass manufacturers outstripped supply, stocks 

declined, and global prices rose (fig. 1; table 1). From 1990 

through 2003, worldwide production exceeded or matched 

demand creating a fairly constant oversupply situation that 

kept prices relatively low. By the late 1990s, selenium was no 

longer used in photocopiers.

Starting in 2003, the price rise and volatility for selenium 

was chiefly attributed to rising but fluctuating demand from 

Chinese manganese producers. Demand for selenium from 

Chinese manganese producers increased owing to China’s 

increased production of steel, for which manganese is an 

alloying element. In China, selenium dioxide (SeO2

) was 

substituted for sulfur dioxide used to increase yields in the 

electrolytic production of manganese (Selenium-Tellurium 

Development Association, 2002). By using SeO2 instead of 

sulfur dioxide, plants reduce the power required to operate 

electrolytic cells. This method requires about 2 kilograms of 

selenium per metric ton of manganese metal produced (TEX 

Report, The, 2009). Selenium prices were also influenced by 

a global run up in metals commodity prices that was sustained 

until the economic crisis at the end of 2008. 

References Cited

Carapella, S.C., Jr., 1984, Selenium (4th ed.): New York, Van 

Nostrand Reinhold Encyclopedia of Chemistry, 1,082 p.

Hess, F.L., 1911, Selenium, in Metals: U.S. Geological Survey, 

Mineral Resources of the United States 1910: pt. I, p. 731.

Hoffman, J.E., 1984, Recovery of selenium from electrolytic 

copper refinery slimes, in Precious metals—Mining, extraction, and processing: Warrendale, Pa., Mining, Minerals, 

and Materials Society, 621 p.

Selenium-Tellurium Development Association, Inc., 2002, 

Applications for selenium: Cavite, Philippines, SeleniumTellurium Development Association, Inc., available via 

http://www.stda.com/.

TEX Report, The, 2009, Cost situation to produce electrolytic manganese metal in China: The TEX Report, v. 41, 

no. 9655, January 26, p. 3.
Selenium (Se) 159

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Dollars per pound

Year

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION

Figure 1. Average annual commercial-grade selenium price.

Significant events affecting selenium prices since 1970

1974–76 Government stocks liquidated by 1974; low commercial inventories; reduced domestic production from recession 

and copper industry strike; increased import dependence; continued growth in plain-paper copiers

1976–80 Stock buildup and reduced demand following 1973–75 recession; production level is established at about one-half 

of 1969 peak

1981–83 Demand surged; stocks remained high; plain-paper copiers and glass manufacturing dominate demand

1984–89 World stocks declined as demand outstrips production; speculation encouraged price fluctuations; domestic 

demand averaged 1.3 million pounds 

1990–91 World production rose; demand slackened owing to recession; stock decline was reversed

1990–99 Organic photoreceptor compounds replaced selenium compounds for plain-paper copiers

2003–10 Increased but fluctuating demand from manganese producers in China; global financial crisis in 2008 reduced 

demand but supplies remained tight, and prices remained relatively high
160 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

Table 1. Annual average commercial-grade selenium price.

[Values in dollars per pound. NA Not available]

Year Price

1911 3.00

1912 2.50

1913 1.68

1914 1.50

1915 NA

1916 1.35

1917 2.15

1918 3.00

1919 2.38

1920 2.00

1921 2.13

1922 1.96

1923 1.86

1924 1.86

1925 1.70

1926 1.95

1927 1.95

1928 2.13

1929 1.65

1930 1.90

1931 1.90

1932 1.90

1933 1.90

1934 1.90

1935 2.00

Year Price

1936 1.88

1937 1.88

1938 1.80

1939 1.80

1940 1.75

1941 1.75

1942 1.75

1943 1.75

1944 1.75

1945 1.75

1946 1.75

1947 1.88

1948 2.00

1949 2.00

1950 2.75

1951 3.25

1952 3.25

1953 3.63

1954 4.63

1955 7.50

1956 11.25

1957 9.75

1958 7.25

1959 7.00

1960 6.75

Year Price

1961 6.38

1962 6.00

1963 5.13

1964 4.50

1965 4.50

1966 4.50

1967 4.50

1968 4.50

1969 7.00

1970 9.00

1971 9.00

1972 9.00

1973 9.25

1974 16.53

1975 18.00

1976 18.00

1977 17.12

1978 15.00

1979 13.65

1980 10.95

1981 4.38

1982 3.53

1983 3.87

1984 9.02

1985 7.44

Year Price

1986 5.70

1987 6.51

1988 9.84

1989 7.61

1990 5.82

1991 5.41

1992 5.13

1993 4.90

1994 4.90

1995 4.89

1996 4.00

1997 2.94

1998 2.50

1999 2.50

2000 3.84

2001 3.80

2002 4.27

2003 5.68

2004 24.89

2005 51.43

2006 24.57

2007 33.08

2008 32.29

2009 23.07

2010 37.83

Notes:

1911–20, Domestic price for 99.5-percent-pure selenium powder, in U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Resources of the United States.

1921–36, Domestic price for 99.5-percent-pure selenium powder, in Engineering and Mining Journal.

1937–66, Domestic price for 99.5-percent-pure selenium powder, in Engineering and Mining Journal, Metal and Mineral Markets.

1967–93, New York dealer price for 99.5-percent-pure selenium powder, in Metals Week.

1993–2010, New York dealer price for 99.5-percent-pure selenium powder, in Platts Metals Week.
Silicon (Si) 161

Silicon (Si)

by Lisa A. Corathers

From antiquity, silicon has been of great importance to 

humankind. Implements made from flint, a variety of quartz 

(silicon dioxide), were among the first tools and weapons. The 

use of silicates for pottery dates back to earliest human history, 

and for glass goes back to about 12,000 B.C. In 1824, Jöns 

Jacob Berzelius first prepared amorphous silicon by passing 

silicon tetrachloride over heated potassium.

Silicon is a light chemical element with metallic and nonmetallic characteristics. It is second in importance to manganese in steelmaking. In the form of ferrosilicon, silicon is used 

for deoxidizing and as a strengthening alloy in the production 

of iron and steel. Silicon metal is used primarily in the aluminum and chemical industries.

Silicon use as a ferroalloy in the production of steel and 

cast iron was established late in the 19th century. Silvery pig 

iron, a silicon ferroalloy generally containing less than 20 percent silicon, was produced by blast furnaces in the 1890s. By 

the start of the 20th century, electric furnace technology was 

also used to produce silvery pig iron, as well as ferroalloys 

with higher nominal silicon content of between 50 percent and 

75 percent, and silicon metal. Growth in production and use of 

silicon ferroalloys was driven by World Wars I and II. Use of 

ferrosilicon paralleled domestic raw steel production, which 

increased approximately 7.5 times during the 20th century.

The first significant use of silicon metal as a bulk element 

occurred around 1920 when it was alloyed with aluminum. 

After aluminum castings, the second largest use for silicon 

metal has been in the production of silicones and related 

chemicals; this began in the 1930s and accelerated during 

World War II. Since shortly after World War II, relatively 

small amounts of silicon metal in high-value, high-purity 

forms have been used in electronic devices, a prime example 

of which is computer chips.

Principal factors in the cost of silicon and ferrosilicon 

production are the delivered costs of the ore (quartz or quartzite) and the costs of energy, reductant coke or low ash coal, 

iron in the form of steel scrap (if required), and labor. These 

costs, and particularly that of energy, have increased rapidly 

since 1970. In addition, capital costs for pollution-control 

equipment have become customary. Bulk ferroalloys produced 

in submerged arc furnaces are extremely power intensive, 

especially silicon metal and silicon-containing alloys, which 

can require up to 14,000 kilowatt hours of electric energy per 

metric ton of silicon contained in the final product (Dosaj, 

1997). Energy is the largest cost component in the production 

of silicon metal and silicon-containing alloys and can account 

for one-fifth or more of total costs (de Linde, 1995).

Specifications for silicon metal (98 percent to 99 percent 

silicon) used by the primary aluminum and specialty chemical 

industries generally are more stringent than those for metal 

used by the secondary aluminum industry. Price trends for the 

small quantities of ultra-pure, high-value silicon produced for 

electronic (greater than 99.9999 percent silicon) or photovoltaic (solar) cell (99.999 percent to 99.9999 percent silicon) 

applications are not addressed in this chapter. Data for U.S. 

exports in 2010 indicate that the cost of ultra-pure silicon 

averaged about as much as 20 times that for metallurgical and 

chemical uses.

Based on usage and nominal silicon content, the main 

types of silicon ferroalloys are 50-percent ferrosilicon, 

75-percent ferrosilicon, and specialty grades. The price trends 

discussed here are for 50-percent ferrosilicon, simply referred 

to as “ferrosilicon” in the following text (fig. 1). Trends for 

75-percent ferrosilicon have been much the same as that for 

50-percent ferrosilicon since at least 1980. Of the specialty 

grades, the most important is perhaps magnesium ferrosilicon. 

Metals Week discontinued publication of magnesium ferrosilicon prices in 1978, followed by American Metal Market in 

February 2002.

Silicon material prices are quoted in terms of silicon 

content, and for the United States, the price unit is cents per 

pound of contained silicon. Silicon metal prices are higher 

than those for ferrosilicon because silicon metal contains more 

silicon units and these take more energy to produce. From 

1959 through 2010, the ratio for the price of silicon contained 

in metal to that contained in ferrosilicon fluctuated considerably, averaging about 1.42 (table 1).

Most of the prices presented here were published by 

Engineering and Mining Journal, Metal and Minerals Markets 

and its successors (Metals Week in 1967 and Platt’s Metals 

Week in 1993). The updating of U.S. producer prices ended in 

about 1991, and their listing was formally suspended in 1996. 

Since 1999, Ryan’s Notes has been the sole source of 50-percent ferrosilicon prices following discontinuation by Platts 

Metals Week. Both Platts Metals Week and Ryan’s Notes 

canvass dealers to provide spot-market prices. The price basis 

for imports has always been bulk lots, free on board (f.o.b.) 

shipping point for producers and f.o.b. warehouse, duty paid, 

for dealer quotes. Silicon metal prices generally have been for 

metal with a typical iron content of 1 percent.

Consumption of metallurgical-grade silicon alloys and 

metal in the short term is influenced less by prices than by 

manufacturing requirements of the aluminum, chemical, ferrous foundry, and steel industries. As a result, silicon material 

prices tend to vary widely with changes in supply and demand 
162 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

by these industries. The price-versus-time curves for ferrosilicon and silicon were quite similar from 1970 through 2010. 

For both materials, prices rose steeply in 1974 and peaked 

markedly in 1988, 1996, and 2008. Since 1974, prices have 

grown at a compound annual rate of about 3.1 percent. This 

rate is lower than the general rate of inflation as given by the 

Consumer Price Index (all urban consumers), which advanced 

since 1974 at an average of 7.4 percent per year, and since the 

early 1980s at about 3.5 percent per year.

Prices began to rise in the early 1970s owing to higher 

costs of electric power, metallurgical-grade coal, and scrap 

iron, and the cost of newly installed pollution control devices 

to comply with governmental standards, which became 

effective in 1975 (Murphy and Brown, 1985). Prices for 

silicon materials increased sharply after Government controls 

imposed on ferroalloy prices were lifted in early 1974. Prices 

rose steadily from 1977 through 1981 in response to increased 

consumption, rising inflation, and higher energy costs (fig. 2; 

table 2).

The 1988 price peaks were attributable to stronger consumption in the aluminum, iron and steel, and specialty chemical industries, and by the end of the year, domestic silicon 

material producers were operating close to capacity (Gambogi, 

1990). Increased consumption and rising prices persuaded 

some producers throughout the world to restart existing facilities and to make plans for future expansion. By yearend 1990, 

however, the then-record high prices of 1988 had declined significantly. The sudden decline in prices was caused mainly by 

oversupply of material resulting from the reactivation of idle 

capacity, development of new capacity in South America, and 

escalation of low cost imports from China, South America, 

and the Soviet Union. As a result of world oversupply, several 

domestic producers scaled back production.

During 1989 through 1991, a number of domestic producers of silicon materials were alleged to have engaged in 

price fixing. As a result of the investigation of these charges 

by the U.S. Department of Justice, two firms pled guilty and 

received fines in 1995–96 for price fixing of ferrosilicon 

(Jones, 1998). In 1997, a third firm was found guilty of price 

fixing of ferrosilicon (Megregian and others, 1998). 

In the 1990s, silicon material prices were influenced by 

the imposition of protective tariffs. Starting in 1980, imports 

of silicon metal and silicon ferroalloys captured an increasingly large share of the U.S. market, with a resultant decline 

in U.S. productive capacity utilization. By the late 1980s, 

domestic producers had petitioned the U.S. Department of 

Commerce and the U.S. International Trade Commission for 

relief from alleged dumping of silicon metal imports from 

Argentina, Brazil, and China. In mid-1991, the two agencies concluded their investigations and imposed antidumping 

duties. For ferrosilicon, a similar sequence of events resulted 

in the imposition of antidumping duties in 1993–94 on a 

number of foreign sources. In subsequent years, at least some 

of these duties have been the subject of annual administrative 

reviews and court challenges that led, in certain cases, to revision or elimination of the duties.

The 1996 price peaks for ferrosilicon and silicon metal, 

as well as those in 1988, roughly coincided with upturns in 

world steel production, indicating a period of strong demand. 

Prices subsequently decreased from 1998 to 2001, partly 

as a result of the deteriorating economic conditions in Asia 

and Russia, and partly because of relatively low growth in 

domestic steel production and declining consumption in the 

aluminum industry caused by a downturn in U.S. economic 

conditions.

Between 2000 and 2010, U.S. ferrosilicon and silicon 

metal prices were affected by domestic industry consolidation, increased import prices, fluctuating worldwide economic 

conditions, and increased global vertical integration of silicon 

material production by principal consumers. The first significant trend was the marked decrease in the number of domestic 

producers and plants, primarily as a result of increased global 

competition. In 2006, there were only 3 ferrosilicon producers 

operating at 4 plants, down from 10 producers and 13 plants 

in 1987. Similarly, there were two silicon metal companies 

producing at four plants in 2006; in 1987, there were nine 

companies and nine plants. 

While U.S. ferrosilicon and silicon metal production 

decreased in the first decade of the 2000s, U.S. consumption 

of silicon materials did not. The country, therefore, had to rely 

on ever-increasing imports of these materials. In 2006, ferrosilicon and silicon metal imports, respectively, were 42 percent 

and 303 percent more than those in 1987. General rates of 

duties were applied on imports of all ferrosilicon and silicon 

metal (excluding the ultra high-purity grade) unless waived 

for a particular foreign company via the General System of 

Preferences or specific free trade agreement, or when a U.S. 

company’s plant was granted foreign-trade-zone status. In 

2007 and 2008, China increased tariffs on ferrosilicon and 

silicon metal exports, which led to higher costs of these materials imported into the United States. U.S. antidumping duties 

generally continued to be assessed on silicon metal imports 

from Brazil, China, and Russia.

Despite the economic downturn that began during the 

third quarter of 2008, both ferrosilicon and silicon metal prices 

were at an alltime average high in 2008. This was primarily attributed to increased domestic and worldwide demand 

and concerns over tightening supplies. Prices for ferrosilicon 

rose earlier in the year mainly because of higher domestic 

steel consumption coupled with tightening supplies brought 

on by increased world raw steel production, particularly by 

the BRIC countries. Higher silicon metal prices in the United 

States were ascribed to supply concerns that arose from power 

shortages affecting major suppliers—Brazil, China, and South 

Africa (Corathers, 2010).

The U.S. and global economic crises that began in late 

2008 eventually brought about a decline in global demand for 

aluminum, chemicals, and steel. World apparent consumption 

of aluminum, chemicals, and steel declined in 2009, as did 

production. Ferrosilicon and silicon metal prices decreased 

significantly from late 2008 through 2009, and then rebounded 

significantly in 2010 as the world economy began to recover, 
Silicon (Si) 163

and aluminum, chemical, and steel production increased 

globally. 

The 2010 price increases were also supported by a 

reduction in silicon material inventories available to the 

world market caused by increasing vertical integration 

of silicon producers by primary consumers. U.S. silicone 

manufacturer Dow Corning Corporation serves as a good 

example of this. In 2009, Dow Corning acquired the Globe 

Metais SA silicon metal plant in Brue Branco, Brazil, from 

Globe Specialty Metals, Inc. (GSM; owner of U.S.-based 

silicon producer Globe Metallurgical, Inc.). The plant production capacity was 43,600 metric tons per year (t/yr). Also in 

2009, Dow Corning formed a joint venture with GSM—WVA 

Manufacturing LLC—at GSM’s 67,000-t/yr silicon metal 

facility in Alloy, W. Va. GSM retained 51-percent ownership 

in, and operational control of, the plant; production was split 

proportionally between the two companies. Dow Corning 

continued acquiring silicon metal production capability by 

forming a joint venture in 2010 with Canada’s Timminco 

Limited, known as Quebec Silicon, to produce silicon metal 

at Timminco’s Becancour Silicon Inc. plant in Becancour, 

Quebec. Timminco retained 51-percent ownership in, and 

operational control of, the plant; production, initially set at 

47,000 t/yr, was split proportionally between the two companies (Corathers, 2011).

Vertical integration continues in the silicon industry, 

thereby reducing inventory and putting upward pressure 

on prices. Another chemical material producer, Germany’s 

Wacker Chemie AG, acquired the Holla Metall silicon metal 

plant in Norway from Fesil in 2010. As a result, one-third 

of Wacker’s annual silicon metal needs were met, and up to 

20 percent of silicon metal was removed from the European 

spot market (Corathers, 2011). In 2010, chemical producer 

China National Bluestar Group Co., Ltd. arranged to purchase 

silicon-material producer Elkem AS from Norwegian Orkla 

AS; the sale was finalized in 2011 (Orkla ASA, 2011). 

References Cited

Corathers, L.A., 2010, Silicon, in Metals and minerals: 

U.S. Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook 2008, v. I, 

p. 67.1–67.15.

Corathers, L.A., 2011, Silicon, in Metals and minerals: U.S. 

Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook 2009, v. I, p. 67.1–

67.13.

de Linde, J.P., 1995, Ferroalloy markets, in Tuset, J.K., Tveit, 

H., and Page, I.G., eds., INFACON 7—Proceedings of the 

Seventh International Ferroalloys Congress, Trondheim, 

Norway, June 11–14, 1995: Trondheim, Norwegian Ferroalloy Research Organization, p. 39–62.

Dosaj, Vishu, 1997, Silicon and silicon alloys—Chemical 

and metallurgical, in Kroschwitz, J.I., and Howe-Grant, 

Mary, eds., Kirk-Othmer encyclopedia of chemical technology (4th ed.): New York, John Wiley & Sons, v. 21, 

p. 1,104–1,122.

Gambogi, Joseph, 1990, Silicon, in Metals and minerals: U.S. 

Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook 1988, v. I, p. 845–853. 

Jones, T.S., 1998, Silicon, in Metals and minerals: 

U.S. Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook 1996, v. I, 

p. 783–791. 

Megregian, S.S., Babbitz, Todd, and Kress, Carl, 1998, 

Antitrust and trade developments in the metals and mining 

industries: Ryan’s Notes 1998 Ferroalloy Conference, 

Boca Raton, Fla., October 25–27, 1998, handout of talk 

presented, unpaginated.

Murphy, G.F., and Brown, R.E., 1985, Silicon, in Mineral 

facts and problems: U.S. Bureau of Mines Bulletin 675, 

p. 713–728.

Orkla ASA, 2011, Fourth quarter 2010 report: Oslo, Norway, 

Orkla ASA, February 9, 15 p., accessed August 6, 2011, at 

http://hugin.info/111/R/1487483/422955.pdf.
164 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Cents per pound contained silicon

Year

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION

Figure 1. Average annual 50-percent ferrosilicon price.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Cents per pound

Year

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION

Figure 2. Annual average silicon metal price.
Silicon (Si) 165

Significant events affecting silicon prices since 1970

1974 Lifting of Government price controls

1980s Imports of silicon materials captured a growing share of U.S. market

1988 Strength in production by principal intermediate consuming industries, such as steel

1991–94 Antidumping duties first assessed on U.S. ferrosilicon and silicon metal imports

1996 Period of strong consumption

1997–99 Asian financial crisis

2000–10 U.S. ferrosilicon and silicon metal industries contraction

2006–08 Increased raw steel production by Brazil, Russia, India, and China (the BRIC countries)

2008–09 Global financial crisis

2010 Worldwide vertical integration of ferrosilicon and silicon metal plants

Table 1. Annual average 50-percent ferrosilicon price.

[Values in cents per pound contained silicon]

Year Price

1959 14.50

1960 14.50

1961 14.50

1962 14.50

1963 14.50

1964 14.50

1965 12.00

1966 12.60

1967 12.60

1968 13.00

1969 13.50

1970 13.60

1971 15.30

Year Price

1972 15.00

1973 18.50

1974 33.00

1975 32.50

1976 33.50

1977 33.50

1978 34.50

1979 38.80

1980 39.80

1981 41.50

1982 41.40

1983 37.10

1984 41.20

Year Price

1985 37.50

1986 35.60

1987 38.50

1988 52.10

1989 49.60

1990 42.40

1991 38.30

1992 36.90

1993 40.80

1994 43.90

1995 57.90

1996 64.00

1997 54.80

Year Price

1998 52.10

1999 49.10

2000 45.00

2001 42.80

2002 41.10

2003 47.70

2004 58.16

2005 55.00

2006 62.93

2007 73.96

2008 115.86

2009 76.93

2010 109.33

Notes:

1959–66, U.S. producer price, in Engineering and Mining Journal, Metal and Mineral Markets.

1967–79, U.S. producer price, in Metals Week.

1980–93, U.S. dealer import price, in Metals Week.

1993–98, U.S. dealer import price, in Platts (Platt’s) Metals Week.

1999–2010, North American transaction price, in Ryan’s Notes.
166 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

Table 2. Annual average silicon metal price.

[Values in cents per pound contained silicon]

Year Price

1959 21.40

1960 21.40

1961 21.40

1962 21.40

1963 19.50

1964 18.20

1965 18.50

1966 18.00

1967 18.10

1968 18.30

1969 20.10

1970 21.50

1971 22.90

Year Price

1972 25.40

1973 28.40

1974 47.00

1975 43.00

1976 42.50

1977 44.00

1978 54.50

1979 53.70

1980 59.20

1981 61.00

1982 57.40

1983 53.80

1984 60.40

Year Price

1985 58.80

1986 56.30

1987 58.10

1988 68.70

1989 58.80

1990 54.80

1991 61.50

1992 60.00

1993 66.40

1994 64.10

1995 69.50

1996 89.70

1997 81.40

Year Price

1998 70.50

1999 58.10

2000 54.80

2001 50.50

2002 53.20

2003 61.30

2004 81.92

2005 76.18

2006 79.29

2007 112.69

2008 162.29

2009 116.37

2010 140.05

Notes:

1959–66, U.S. producer price, in Engineering and Mining Journal, Metal and Mineral Markets.

1967–79, U.S. producer price, in Metals Week.

1980–93, U.S. dealer import price, in Metals Week.

1993–2010, U.S. dealer import price, in Platts (Platt’s) Metals Week.
Silver (Ag) 167

Silver (Ag)

by William E. Brooks

Silver has been traded and used for thousands of years 

as ornaments and utensils, and as the basis of many monetary 

systems. The metal has played an important part in world 

history. Silver from the mines at Laurion, Greece, for example, 

financed the Greek victory over the Persians in 480 B.C. Silver 

from Potosi, Bolivia, helped Spain become a world power in 

the 16th and 17th centuries. Also, silver from the gold-silver 

ores at the Comstock Lode in Virginia City, Nev., helped keep 

the Union solvent during the Civil War. 

The primary source of silver is argentiferous galena, as 

it is relatively abundant and relatively easy to smelt. However, there are many other ores of silver, including acanthite, 

anglesite, argentite, cerargyrite, cerussite, proustite, pyragyrite 

and stephanite, and it also occurs as a native metal. Silver may 

be present in many geologic environments, and byproduct 

silver may be obtained from the processing of copper, gold, 

and lead-zinc ores. More than two-thirds of U.S. and world 

resources are contained in such polymetallic deposits and the 

remainder is found in silver deposits. 

Pure silver has the whitest color, the highest optical 

reflectivity, and the highest thermal and electrical conductivity of all the metals. Silver halides are photosensitive; 

however, the use of silver in photographic applications has 

declined since its peak in 1999 because of increased use of 

digital cameras. Owing to its physical properties, silver has 

many industrial applications, such as in brazing and soldering, 

catalytic converters, food packaging, wood preservatives, and 

increasing use in electronics applications. It is a biocide and its 

use in wound care and medical applications has also increased. 

It is also used as a catalyst in oxidation reactions; for example, 

in the production of formaldehyde from methanol and air 

(Butts and Coxe, 1967, p. 1–15).

Most of the silver mined today is produced as a byproduct of precious or base metals, primarily lead and zinc. 

Leading silver-producing countries include Mexico, Peru, and 

China. In the United States, the leading silver-producing State 

is Alaska, where silver is produced as a byproduct from leadzinc mining. 

There are two types of markets for silver—physical markets and futures exchanges. It is possible for these markets to 

overlap if the buyers of futures contracts take delivery of silver 

metal when the contracts mature. A notable example of this 

was in the early 1980s when two buyers and their associates 

took delivery of millions of ounces of silver when their futures 

contract matured. Physical markets are operated by bullion 

dealers, banks, and commodity dealers. Silver is bought from 

mines and refineries and sold to consumers and brokers to 

supply industrial and investment demand. The London Bullion 

Market, which had its origins in the 17th century, was the 

leading physical market until about 1960, when it was overtaken in importance by the New York Market. The London 

Market fixes a daily price, at which all orders to buy or sell 

silver can be matched. The New York Market price for silver 

is the Handy & Harman quote for unfabricated silver, which 

the company announces daily at noon. That is the lowest price 

at which offers can be obtained by Handy & Harman for silver 

in commercial bar form. The Handy & Harman price and the 

London fixing are for 99.9-percent-pure silver.

Prior to World War II, the major uses for silver, other than 

in coinage, were for jewelry and sterlingware. During the war, 

technological advances were made in electronics and photography and after the war, this technology was used to develop 

new consumer products. Owing to the shortage of copper during World War II, 13,500 tons of silver was borrowed from the 

U.S. Treasury. The silver was processed and used as conductive wiring, in place of copper, in the electromagnets necessary 

for uranium enrichment as a part of atomic bomb production. 

The silver was recovered and then returned to the Treasury. 

As the demand for consumer goods increased, so did 

the demand for silver, and, as a result, the market price 

increased. The higher market price, however, did not result in 

increased mine production. The Silver Act of 1946 authorized 

the U.S. Treasury to purchase domestically mined silver at 

$0.905 per troy ounce and to sell its silver holdings at $0.91 

per ounce. Through the first half of the 1950s, the market price 

remained below $0.91 per ounce, so domestic mine operators 

sold their silver to the Treasury (table 1). In the second half 

of the 1950s, the continued increase in industrial demand for 

silver and static mine production resulted in the market price 

increasing to $0.91 per ounce and Treasury silver sales were 

the largest source of silver for industrial consumers (National 

Academy of Sciences, 1968).

In the late 1950s and early 1960s, a second component 

was added to the demand side of the supply-demand equation—the investor speculator. The silver certificates authorized 

by the Silver Purchase Act of 1934 were redeemable for silver 

held by the Treasury. At a market price above $1.29, a profit 

could be made by redeeming the silver certificates, receiving 

0.77 ounce of silver from the Treasury, and then selling the 

silver. In addition, at a market price above $1.38, a profit could 

be made by melting U.S. circulating coinage for its silver 

content. Realizing that it could not continue to supply industrial consumers with silver, mint coinage, and maintain a stock 

of silver for redemption of silver certificates, the Government 

began a program to demonetize silver. Public Law 88–36, 

which repealed the Silver Purchase Act of 1934 and authorized 
168 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

the printing of Federal Reserve Notes not redeemable in silver, 

was passed in mid-1963. The Coinage Act of 1965 eliminated 

the use of silver in dimes and quarters and reduced the silver 

content of half dollars. In 1967, silver coins were withdrawn 

from circulation, and holders of silver certificates were given 

1 year, until June 24, 1968, to redeem the certificates for silver 

(Silver Institute, The, 1990, p. 6–7).

With the ending of the relationship between silver and the 

U.S. monetary system in 1968, investor speculator activities 

and industrial demand became the main determinants of movement in the silver market price. From 1968 through 1971, the 

price declined, owing in part to an economic recession in the 

United States and an attempt by the Government to stabilize 

the price of silver. From 1972 through 1975, the average price 

increased, owing to such factors as the devaluation of the U.S. 

dollar and an embargo of oil exports by the Organization of 

Petroleum Exporting Countries (fig. 1). Prices also increased 

from 1976 through 1980. Analysts attributed this 5-year period 

of higher average prices to such factors as a high domestic 

inflation rate combined with slow growth in U.S. economic 

activity, another “oil crisis,” a U.S. economic recession that 

began in 1979, and an attempt by a group of investors to 

“corner” the silver market (Roskill Information Services 

Ltd., 1984, p. 190–203). By early 1981, the silver market was 

beginning to adjust to the upward pressure placed on prices in 

1979 through 1980. Owing to worldwide recession and reaction to higher silver prices, industrial demand for silver was in 

decline, and investment demand for silver fell sharply. Supply 

also fell as the surge of secondary recovery from old scrap and 

coin remelting subsided. Silver prices reached a cyclical low 

of $4.88 per ounce in June 1982, 10 percent of the $48 peak 

30 months earlier. Because of panic in the financial markets 

and fear of inflation, investment demand for silver increased 

sharply in late 1982 and the first quarter of 1983. This influx 

of investor buying helped push silver prices from the low of 

$4.88 in June 1982 to a peak of $14.74 in February 1983. In 

March, this rapid rise in price (the price nearly tripled in 9 

months) was reversed as investors took profits and industrial 

users developed new methods that reduced their per-unit use 

of silver, substituting lower priced materials for silver. Prices 

recovered during the summer, but the trend was downward 

from the fourth quarter of 1983 through 1986. Lower prices 

discouraged the secondary recovery of silver and forced lessefficient mines to close. On the demand side, lower prices 

relieved the pressure to use less silver or to use lower cost 

substitutes for silver in products. After starting 1987 at $5.44 

per ounce, prices reached a low of $5.36 on January 7. Prices 

increased through the remainder of the year, reaching a high 

of $10.20 on April 27 but closing out the year at $7.20. The 

annual average price for 1987 was $7.01 per ounce, the first 

increase in 4 years.

Owing to various market and economic conditions, the 

annual average price of silver declined from $7.01 per ounce 

in 1987 to a low of $3.94 in 1992 before increasing slightly 

to $4.30 in 1993. Prices began to increase in the first quarter 

of 1994, reaching $5.75 per ounce on March 28. The upward 

momentum was caused by political unrest in Mexico, the 

world’s largest producer, and reports of large shipments to 

India. In April 1994, prices slipped rapidly to around $5.00 

per ounce as Indian demand slowed and large supplies from 

Russia and other East European countries appeared in the market. In September, prices increased again to $5.71 per ounce 

before collapsing to $4.90 on November 30. Prices in 1995 

were not quite as volatile as in 1994, but the downward trend 

that began in April 1994 continued (Silver Institute, The, 1995, 

p. 8–15).

For centuries, the price of silver has been closely coupled 

with the price of gold, but the demonetization of both metals 

in much of the world has weakened the link. Throughout most 

of 1996, the price of silver was adversely affected by the poor 

performance of gold. Toward the end of 1996, however, the 

price of silver began to deviate from the price of gold, owing 

to investors’ and speculators’ adoption of distinctly different positions in the two markets. This decoupling process 

continued into 1997, and although the gold market continued 

to influence the price of silver, the trend in the metals’ prices 

indicated that a total decoupling may have been in the making.

In the first 2 months of 1997, the price of gold decreased 

by 2 percent and the price of silver also decreased to a 2-year 

low of $4.65 per ounce in the first week of January. By early 

July, the gold price had decreased to $315 per ounce, a 12-year 

low, and silver decreased to $4.21 per ounce on July 17, its 

low for the year. By October 1997, gold fell to a 12-year 

low of $308 per ounce; however, the price for silver closed 

above $4.60 per ounce. By late November, gold fell below 

$300 per ounce while the silver price increased to more than 

$5.30. By December 1, the price of silver had increased to 

$5.83, as above-ground stocks of silver declined to the lowest 

level in many years. The price of silver reached its high on 

December 24 at $6.24 per ounce and the yearend price was 

$5.95 per ounce.

In early February 1998, silver prices rose to a 9-year high 

of $7.13 per ounce after it became known that a U.S. investment firm had purchased 3,978 metric tons of the metal after 

having made its first purchase in July 1997, when the price 

was less than $4.50 per ounce. By the end of the month, the 

silver price was $6.15 per ounce and prices continued to fall to 

a low of about $4.70 at the end of August. The yearend silver 

price was $5.05 per ounce.

In early 1999, the silver price increased to $7.80 per 

ounce; however, by yearend, the price was less than $5.00 per 

ounce. The price continued in the $5.00- to $6.00-per-ounce 

range until 2004, when the price increased to as much as $8.29 

in March; however, by yearend the price was less than $7.00 

per ounce. 

In 2005, the average silver price was $7.34 per ounce, 

which was 10 percent above the 2004 average price of $6.69 

per ounce. Prices for copper, gold, and silver all rose significantly during 2005 as part of a boom in mineral commodity 

investment, and consumption increased at a faster rate than 

production. 
Silver (Ag) 169

In April 2006, the silver exchange traded fund (ETF) 

started trading on the American Stock Exchange. Investors 

expanded their silver holdings in expectation that the price 

would increase dramatically upon opening of the ETF. In 

response, the price of silver increased before the ETF was 

launched. The silver ETF gave easy access to many investors 

who had been reluctant or unable to buy silver, and the growth 

of ETFs has led to an increase in silver investment. One of 

the most notable effects of the ETF has been the rise in silver 

prices (Silver Institute, The, 2007, p. 20).

Silver prices have increased owing to investment demand 

as well as silver’s expanded role in the global industrial 

market. Supply does not appear to be an issue as domestic 

mine production generally increased from 1,160 metric tons (t) 

in 2006 to approximately 1,280 t in 2010. In 1990, industrial 

demand was 8,490 t, or 39 percent of total fabrication demand, 

and in 2007, industrial demand had risen to 14,460 t or 

55 percent of total silver fabrication demand (Silver Institute, 

The, 2010, p. 5). The industrial applications of silver include 

batteries, brazing alloys and solders, catalytic converters, 

electronics, food packaging, medical uses and wound care, 

nanosilver, photovoltaics, polyester production from ethylene 

oxide, radio frequency identification devices (RFIDs), silver 

inks, supercapacitors, and water purification. The daily price 

of silver for the month of December peaked at $30.64 on 

December 31; however, the average price of silver at yearend 

2010 was $17.75. 

References Cited

Butts, A., and Coxe, C.D., 1967, Silver—Economics, metallurgy, and use: Princeton, N.J., Van Nostrand, 488 p.

National Academy of Sciences, 1968, Trends in usage of 

silver: National Academy of Sciences Publication MAB–24, 

15 p. 

Roskill Information Services Ltd., 1984, The economics of 

silver (3d ed.): London, Roskill Information Services Ltd., 

203 p. 

Silver Institute, The, 1990, World silver survey, 1950–1990: 

Washington, D.C., The Silver Institute, 81 p.

Silver Institute, The, 1995, World silver survey, 1995: 

Washington, D.C., The Silver Institute, 64 p.

Silver Institute, The, 2007, World silver survey, 2007: 

Washington, D.C., The Silver Institute, 100 p.

Silver Institute, The, 2010, The future of silver industrial 

demand: Washington, D.C., The Silver Institute, 32 p.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Dollars per troy ounce

Year

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION

Figure 1. Annual average silver price.
170 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

Significant events affecting silver prices since 1970 

1979–80 Individual investors attempted to corner the silver market

1985 U.S. Mint authorized to begin minting a silver bullion coin

1982–97 U.S. Government disposed of silver in the National Defense Stockpile, using it for production of commemorative 

coins

1998 Price increased in the first quarter of 1998 following disclosure that an investment firm had accumulated 

approximately 4,000 metric tons (t) of silver

2006 Highest average price since 1983 owing to investment interest in newly established silver exchange-traded fund 

(ETF)

1999–2010 Price increased mainly because of investment demand and increased industrial use

Table 1. Annual average silver price.

[Values in dollars per troy ounce]

Year Price

1900 0.62

1901 0.60

1902 0.53

1903 0.54

1904 0.58

1905 0.61

1906 0.67

1907 0.66

1908 0.53

1909 0.52

1910 0.54

1911 0.54

1912 0.62

1913 0.61

1914 0.56

1915 0.51

1916 0.67

1917 0.84

1918 0.98

1919 1.12

1920 1.02

1921 0.63

1922 0.68

1923 0.65

1924 0.67

1925 0.69

1926 0.62

1927 0.57

Year Price

1928 0.58

1929 0.53

1930 0.38

1931 0.29

1932 0.28

1933 0.35

1934 0.48

1935 0.64

1936 0.45

1937 0.45

1938 0.43

1939 0.39

1940 0.35

1941 0.35

1942 0.38

1943 0.45

1944 0.45

1945 0.52

1946 0.80

1947 0.72

1948 0.74

1949 0.72

1950 0.74

1951 0.89

1952 0.85

1953 0.85

1954 0.85

1955 0.89

Year Price

1956 0.91

1957 0.91

1958 0.89

1959 0.91

1960 0.91

1961 0.92

1962 1.09

1963 1.28

1964 1.29

1965 1.29

1966 1.29

1967 1.55

1968 2.14

1969 1.79

1970 1.77

1971 1.55

1972 1.68

1973 2.56

1974 4.71

1975 4.42

1976 4.35

1977 4.62

1978 5.40

1979 11.09

1980 20.63

1981 10.52

1982 7.95

1983 11.44

Year Price

1984 8.14

1985 6.14

1986 5.47

1987 7.01

1988 6.53

1989 5.50

1990 4.82

1991 4.04

1992 3.94

1993 4.30

1994 5.29

1995 5.15

1996 5.19

1997 4.89

1998 5.54

1999 5.25

2000 5.00

2001 4.39

2002 4.62

2003 4.91

2004 6.69

2005 7.34

2006 11.57

2007 13.41

2008 15.00

2009 14.69

2010 20.20

Notes:

1900–74, New York price of 99.9-percent-pure silver, in Silver, U.S. Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook 1974.

1974–93, New York price of 99.9-percent-pure silver, in Metals Week.

1993–2010, New York price of 99.9-percent-pure silver, in Platts (Platt’s) Metals Week.
Tantalum (Ta) 171

Tantalum (Ta)

by John F. Papp

Tantalum is a refractory metal that is easily fabricated, 

has a high melting point, is highly resistant to corrosion 

by acids, and is a good conductor of heat and electricity. 

Tantalum’s first commercial usage was as filament material in 

incandescent electric lamps in the early 1900s (Miller, 1959). 

Currently, the major use for tantalum, as tantalum metal 

powder, is in the production of electronic components, mainly 

tantalum capacitors. Alloyed with other metals, tantalum is 

also used in making carbide tools for metalworking equipment 

and in the production of superalloys for jet engine components. Substitutes, such as aluminum, rhenium, titanium, tungsten, and zirconium, exist for tantalum but are usually made at 

either a performance or economic penalty.

Tantalum ore (tantalite) is the leading source of tantalum, 

and the price for tantalum products is mostly affected by 

events in the supply of and demand for tantalite. Thus, the 

price for tantalum metal products generally follows the pattern 

for that of tantalum ore. The price for tantalum metal products 

is also affected by the size of the order/contract and material 

specification. The yearend 1998 price for tantalum ore was 

about $41.50 per pound of contained tantalum compared to the 

selling price for the following tantalum metal products (per 

pound of contained tantalum)—vacuum-grade metal for superalloys, $75 to $95; sheet, $100 to $150; capacitor-grade metal 

powder, $135 to $240; and capacitor-grade wire, $180 to $250.

Australia is the leading producer of tantalum ore. U.S. 

tantalum mining has not been significant since 1959. The 

United States satisfies its tantalum requirements primarily by 

importing tantalum ore from Australia and Brazil and quantities of metal and powders from various countries. Many of 

the applications for tantalum are either directly or indirectly 

defense related because of its use in the aerospace, communications, energy, and transportation industries. Thus, tantalum 

was classified as critical and strategic by the Government of 

the United States, and during the years, various tantalum materials have been purchased for the National Defense Stockpile 

(NDS).

A significant activity during the 1950s was the 

U.S. Government’s worldwide program for the purchase of 

about 6,800 metric tons (t) of combined niobium and tantalum oxides contained in niobium-tantalum ores. The purchase 

program was terminated in 1958 (Cunningham, 1985a, b). The 

program, which was initiated to encourage increased production of niobium-tantalum ores and concentrates of domestic 

and foreign origin, largely governed the market price for 

tantalum ore. It also resulted in the discovery of large lowgrade domestic and foreign deposits of tantalum minerals. The 

program, however, was less successful in developing domestic 

tantalum mineral production. The low grade of the discoveries 

precluded their development at the 1958 price or, at that time, 

expected future prices.

By 1960, tantalum demand for use in aerospace applications, capacitors, corrosion-resistant chemical and nuclear 

applications, high-temperature alloys, and machine cutting 

tools had increased substantially. Price peaks in 1961 and 1966 

were occasioned by a sudden increase in demand for tantalum, 

which outstripped the supply, thus driving prices up (table 1). 

Increased demand stimulated tantalum production. After a leveling off of demand, however, overproduction ensued, resulting in a decline in tantalum prices. The higher cost operations, 

which had opened in response to the increased demand, closed 

down, and supply reverted back to previous levels.

The 1970s was a decade of increasing tantalum demand, 

ore shortages, escalating prices, and substitution. The record 

price levels during this period were attributed, in part, to a 

state of panic buying influenced by anticipated increases in 

tantalum demand amidst concerns of shrinking world tantalum supply (fig. 1). As demand for tantalum increased, some 

processors foresaw the coming production shortfall and began 

to stockpile inventories. The net effect was very competitive 

buying of tantalum feed materials to meet customer needs 

with associated spiraling prices. The high prices brought about 

substitution for tantalum and more-widespread search for and 

development of new tantalum supply sources.

During 1979 to 1980, the price for tantalum ore exploded. 

Tantalum ore production could not meet market demand, 

resulting in sustained inventory reduction. With optimistic 

forecasts of market growth, processors found themselves 

locked into a bidding contest for available tantalum ore. By 

yearend 1982, large high-cost inventories of tantalum ore were 

accumulated as a hedge against perceived future shortages.

During the late 1970s and early 1980s, processors, faced 

with runaway tantalum ore prices, were forced to pass along 

a large part of the price increases to end users. Because of 

escalating tantalum prices, consumers began to substitute 

alternate products, to decrease tantalum content in products, 

and to increase recycling to substitute for virgin tantalum 

materials. These demand-reducing activities were accelerated 

by the price volatility and resulted in increased inventories. In 

the consumer electronics sector, tantalum was designed out of 

some circuits and replaced primarily with aluminum-bearing 

electronic components.

The tantalum ore price reached a peak at midyear 1980, 

about $118 per pound of contained tantalum pentoxide. By 

yearend 1980, prices began declining and, by yearend 1986, 

were the lowest since yearend 1976. The downturn in prices 
172 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

was hastened by weak tantalum demand and the overhang 

of the large inventories of tantalum source materials built up 

during the early 1980s. Industry sources estimated that these 

inventories were as high as 5,000 t of contained tantalum 

oxide in 1982 (Tantalum-Niobium International Study Center, 

1986), a year in which production was estimated to have 

been 400 t of contained tantalum pentoxide. By 1988, price 

increases for tantalum ore were again of major concern in the 

tantalum industry. The yearend 1988 price for tantalum ore 

of $50 per pound of contained tantalum pentoxide was nearly 

double that of the yearend 1987 price. The price escalation 

was attributed to increased demand for tantalum ore following 

a drawdown of the tantalum inventories that had been built up.

The price for tantalum ore continued its cyclic pattern 

through 1993; thereafter, the price was steady with some moderate increases. From 1990 to 1998, the demand for tantalum 

remained strong, with increased consumption in most years. 

Demand was robust in the electronics sector for tantalum 

capacitors in such products as automotive electronics, pagers, 

personal computers, portable telephones, and video cameras. 

Overall growth in this sector, however, was slowed owing to 

the industry’s continued emphasis on the miniaturization of 

electronic components, resulting in less tantalum used per unit.

In 1990, the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) purchased 

about 91 t of tantalum pentoxide contained in tantalum ore 

for the NDS. The price of the material purchased ranged 

from about $36.62 to $37.00 per pound of contained tantalum 

pentoxide. At about the time of material purchase, the price 

quote for tantalum ore ranged from about $27.00 to $28.50 per 

pound of contained tantalum pentoxide (Cunningham, 1993).

In 1991, Australia’s largest tantalum ore producer, Talison 

Minerals Pty. Ltd., entered into contracts with the world’s two 

largest tantalum processors for the long-term supply of tantalum ore. Under the terms of the contracts, tantalum ore would 

be supplied to the processors at fixed volumes and prices for 

5 years (Gwalia Consolidated Ltd., 1991). Subsequently, the 

producer contracted with the processors for the sale of all its 

budgeted production of tantalum ore through 2003 (Sons of 

Gwalia Ltd., 1998).

In 1998, the DLA initiated the sale of tantalum ore from 

the NDS. In September and December, the DLA sold about 90 

t of tantalum contained in tantalum ore valued at about $11.6 

million (Defense National Stockpile Center, 1998a, b). The 

overall average unit price for the sales, about $48 per pound 

of contained tantalum oxide, was significantly higher than that 

being quoted for tantalum ore at the time, about $34 per pound 

of contained pentoxide.

Jeangrand (2005, p. 25) noted that “the tantalum market 

has been marked by long periods of stability, punctuated by 

very sharp price hikes created by a combination of strong 

demand and fears about shortage.” Significant changes in 

tantalum ore annual average price took place in 1980, 1988, 

and 2000. In 2000, price increased by a factor of 5 to $220 per 

pound of contained tantalum pentoxide, and then returned to 

historical values. The price surge was attributed to over ordering (Minerals Bureau [South Africa], 2002, p. 14–15). Double 

and triple ordering of tantalum for capacitor production in late 

2000 was done under a perceived looming supply shortage. 

Excessive ordering encouraged the perception that consumption was increasing, which in turn created the appearance that 

supply would fall short of demand. These perceptions can also 

contribute to price increases. The industry built up excessive 

inventories throughout the tantalum supply chain. The inventory reduction process was expected to remain a feature of 

the tantalum market for some time. The stability of tantalite 

price in 2008, along with the closure of the Wodgina Mine 

(Australia) in 2008, indicated that excess inventories were 

continuing to be worked off. World tantalum material stocks 

are not reported by the tantalum industry.

Demand for mobile phones and other consumer electronics boomed in 2000 causing concern that tantalum supply 

would go into deficit, resulting in increased competition for 

the limited supply. This caused prices to spike. Capacitor manufactures made long-term contracts at prevailing prices. The 

electronics market experienced a downturn and the anticipated 

supply shortage failed to materialize. In 2008, Talison Minerals Pty. Ltd. (Australia) halted production in the face of large 

inventories in the supply chain, falling prices, and a declining world economy. Noventa Ltd. (Mozambique) and Tantalum Mining Corporation of Canada Ltd. (Tanco) (Canada) 

subsequently suspended production. These three companies 

accounted for more than one-half of tantalum ore production 

in 2008 (Roskill Information Services Ltd., 2009, p. 141–151).

During 2008–09, consumers relied heavily on tantalum 

ore inventories and huge quantities of highly contentious and 

politically sensitive, low-cost columbite and tantalite from the 

Congo (Kinshasa) that appeared to have displaced producers 

in the conventional supply chain. The mainstream industry 

sought a way to exclude illegal tantalum ore from the supply 

chain. It was thought that a ban on such material by the United 

States and the European Union was possible. After the financial crisis and subsequent economic slowdown in 2008 and 

2009, an estimated 40 percent of tantalum mine production 

was put on care-and-maintenance status, including mines in 

Australia, Canada, and Mozambique. New production projects 

in Canada, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia offered the possibility that 

new mines could be brought into production between 2011 and 

2013 if demand recovered. It was anticipated that as the global 

economy recovered, the demand for tantalum would as well 

(Roskill Information Services Ltd., 2009, p. 21–23).

References Cited

Cunningham, L.D., 1985a, Columbium, in Mineral facts and 

problems: U.S. Bureau of Mines Bulletin 675, p. 185–196.

Cunningham, L.D., 1985b, Tantalum, in Mineral facts and 

problems: U.S. Bureau of Mines Bulletin 675, p. 811–822.

Cunningham, L.D., 1993, Columbium and tantalum, in Metals 

and minerals: U.S. Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook 

1990, v. I, p. 339–357.
Tantalum (Ta) 173

Defense National Stockpile Center, 1998a, Stockpile awards 

tantalum minerals: Fort Belvoir, VA, Defense National 

Stockpile Center news release, September 24, 1 p.

 Defense National Stockpile Center, 1998b, Stockpile awards 

tantalum minerals: Fort Belvoir, VA, Defense National 

Stockpile Center news release, December 4, 1 p.

Gwalia Consolidated Ltd., 1991, Annual report 1991: West 

Perth, Western Australia, Gwalia Consolidated Ltd., 63 p.

Jeangrand, Joel, 2005, Comprehensive strategic analysis of 

the tantalum industry: Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada, 

Simon Fraser University Master thesis, summer, 77 p.

Miller, G.L., 1959, Tantalum and niobium, in Metallurgy of 

the rarer metals: London, Butterworths Scientific Publications, p. 2.

Minerals Bureau [South Africa], 2002, The tantalum market—

A micro-economic analysis: Johannesburg, South Africa, 

Minerals Bureau Report R37/2002, 15 p., accessed May 30, 

2006, at http://www.dme.gov.za/pdfs/minerals/r37_2002.pdf. 

(Also available at http://www.docstoc.com/docs/19838994/

THE-TANTALUM-MARKET-A-micro---economicanalysis#.)

Roskill Information Services Ltd., 2009, The Economics 

of Tantalum, 2009 (10th ed.): London, United Kingdom, 

Roskill Information Services Ltd., 152 p.

Sons of Gwalia Ltd., 1998, Annual report 1998: West Perth, 

Western Australia, Sons of Gwalia Ltd., 92 p.

Tantalum-Niobium International Study Center, 1986, 

Perspectives on the development of the tantalum industry: 

Tantalum-Niobium International Study Center No. 48, 

October, p. 2–5.

0

50

100

150

200

250

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Dollars per pound contained tantalum pentoxide

Year

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION

Figure 1. Yearend average tantalum concentrate price.
174 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

Significant events affecting tantalum prices since 1970

1979–80 Tantalum price accelerated to record levels

1982 Industry's accumulation of large tantalum material inventories

1988 Drawdown of tantalum material inventories by processors

1990 Purchase of tantalum materials for the National Defense Stockpile (NDS)

1991 Long-term tantalum supply contracts between major producer and processors; dissolution of the Soviet Union

1998 Sales of tantalum minerals from the NDS

1999 Market opacity resulted in runaway demand

1990–2010 Rise of China as a leading steel-producing and -consuming nation

2008 Financial market problems and subsequent economic slowdown

Table 1. Yearend average tantalum concentrate price.

[Values in dollars per pound contained tantalum pentoxide. NA Not available]

Year Price

1940 2.50

1941 2.25

1942 1.93

1943 2.50

1944 2.50

1945 2.50

1946 NA

1947 2.50

1948 2.38

1949 2.25

1950 2.25

1951 2.25

1952 3.40

1953 3.40

1954 3.40

1955 3.40

1956 3.40

1957 3.40

Year Price

1958 3.40

1959 4.80

1960 7.25

1961 11.50

1962 5.50

1963 6.50

1964 6.50

1965 7.75

1966 13.00

1967 10.25

1968 6.50

1969 7.13

1970 7.13

1971 6.50

1972 5.63

1973 8.00

1974 14.00

1975 16.00

Year Price

1976 17.63

1977 24.63

1978 39.50

1979 92.50

1980 105.50

1981 37.50

1982 22.50

1983 29.50

1984 32.00

1985 22.75

1986 21.75

1987 26.00

1988 50.00

1989 27.00

1990 33.00

1991 28.25

1992 29.00

1993 26.00

Year Price

1994 26.25

1995 27.75

1996 27.75

1997 33.00

1998 34.00

1999 34.00

2000 220.00

2001 37.00

2002 31.00

2003 30.00

2004 29.00

2005 34.00

2006 33.00

2007 37.00

2008 44.00

2009 40.00

2010 54.00

Notes:

1940–41, published in Engineering and Mining Journal, Metal and Mineral Markets.

1942–43, U.S. Government purchase.

1944–51, published in Engineering and Mining Journal, Metal and Mineral Markets.

1952–58, U.S. Government purchase.

1959–62, published in U.S. Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbooks.

1963–66, published in Engineering and Mining Journal, Metal and Mineral Markets.

1967–92, published in Metals Week.

1993–98, published in Platt’s Metals Week.

1999–2003, U.S. Geological Survey Mineral Commodity Summaries 2004.

2004–10, published in Ryan’s Notes.
Tellurium (Te) 175

Tellurium (Te)

by Micheal W. George 

Tellurium is a relatively rare element, tied for 71st place 

with platinum and palladium in rank of crustal abundance. It 

is in the same chemical family as oxygen, sulfur, selenium, 

and polonium—oxygen and sulfur are nonmetals, polonium is 

a metal, and selenium and tellurium are metalloids, although 

they are often referred to as metals when in elemental form 

and have semiconducting electrical properties that make 

them suitable in electronics applications. Tellurium was first 

identified in 1782 in Transylvanian gold ore (Azimov, 1994, 

p. 260). For more than a century, tellurium was an experimental material having little commercial value. Small quantities of 

tellurium were produced from anode slimes generated during 

the electrolytic refining of copper. World tellurium production is still mainly a byproduct of copper processing. Because 

tellurium is a byproduct, supply and demand imbalances have 

developed that have had significant influences on price (Elkin, 

1985, p. 1158).

By 1920, a small commercial demand had developed for 

tellurium in electronic equipment, electroplating, and chemical production (Heikes, 1922). Despite sales of only about 590 

kilograms per year in 1928, production of tellurium rose to 

more than 5,200 kilograms per year by 1929 following the rise 

in electrolytic copper production. Much of the production was 

furnished free to researchers seeking new uses for tellurium 

and was not included in sales figures (Heikes, 1933).

Additional significant commercial uses for tellurium 

were developed during the 1930s; however, supply continued 

to exceed consumption. Major uses included the purification 

of zinc-refining solutions, alloying with lead to improve its 

tensile strength and corrosion resistance, and as an addition to 

rubber compounds to improve resistance to aging and abrasion.

Production and consumption of tellurium fluctuated 

markedly between 1940 and 1958, but generally supply outstripped consumption. A demand peak in 1941, attributed to 

World War II, corresponded to the increased use of tellurium 

as a carbon stabilizer in cast iron, and a peak in 1951–52 was 

attributed to the Korean Conflict and to tellurium’s expanded 

use in copper alloying. Price-driven substitution of tellurium 

for selenium in some applications helped boost consumption 

from 1955 through 1958.

Because tellurium is a byproduct, with production 

essentially independent of demand, and its uses being in small 

and specialized applications, its market is volatile. Prices rose 

from $1.70 per pound in 1958 to $6.00 per pound in 1962 

before stabilizing at the higher level (Lansche, 1963, p. 148) 

(table 1). This period was marked by increased shipments and 

speculative interest. The rise in price also corresponded to the 

growth in thermoelectric applications for tellurium, as well as 

its use in free-machining steel, which became the dominant 

use (Holowaty, 1964; Rathke and Morgan, 1965). 

Prices remained stable at about $6.00 per pound until the 

early 1970s, when growing demand for ferrous alloy applications was followed by a rapid growth in the catalytic applications of tellurium in petrochemicals processing. Tellurium 

prices declined sharply from 1980–83 following closure in 

1979 of a large domestic consumer of tellurium catalyst, 

which reduced consumption and returned a large quantity 

of consumer stocks to the market; a slump in steel production in 1981 further reduced consumption (fig. 1). Production 

also decreased owing to a decline in the tellurium content of 

domestic copper ores (Wills, 1982). By 1983, in part owing 

to a decline in the tellurium content of domestic copper ores, 

only one domestic producer of tellurium remained. Domestic 

production decreased in 1985 when a smelter that processed 

imported high tellurium copper concentrates closed. By 1987, 

with increasing demand for free-machining steels and minimal production of tellurium, inventories became critically 

depleted, and prices rose substantially and remained fairly 

stable until 1993. A steady decline in prices began in 1994 that 

lasted through 2000. During this period, an oversupply developed as a fall in consumption exceeded the decline in production (Brown, 1998, p. 13–17).

In 2004 and 2005, increases in consumption from 

Chinese electronic manufacturers resulted in an increase 

in the price of tellurium. The price dropped in 2006, but in 

2007 resumed its upward trend owing to increased production of cadmium telluride (CdTe) solar cells. Some of the 

price increase was also attributed to speculative buying in the 

belief that supplies would be insufficient to meet the growing 

demand for tellurium in solar cells. 

References Cited

Azimov, Isaac, 1994, Azimov’s chronology of science and 

discovery: New York, Harper Collins Publishers, 800 p.

Brown, R.D., Jr., 1998, Selenium tellurium supply-demand 

relationship: International Symposium on the Uses of 

Selenium and Tellurium, 6th, Scottsdale, Ariz., May 10–12, 

1998, Proceedings, p. 13–17.

Elkin, E.M., 1985, Tellurium and tellurium compounds, in

Kirk-Othmer concise encyclopedia of chemical technology: 

New York, John Wiley, 1318 p.
176 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

Heikes, V.C., 1922, Selenium and tellurium, in Mineral 

resources of the United States 1920: U.S. Geological 

Survey, pt. I—Metals, p. 71–72.

Heikes, V.C., 1933, Arsenic, bismuth, selenium, and tellurium, 

in Mineral resources of the United States 1930, Part I—

Metals: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 25–30.

Holowaty, M.O., 1964, Free-machining steels: U.S. Patents 

3,152,889 and 3,152,890, assigned to Inland Steel Co., 

October 13.

Lansche, A.M., 1963, Tellurium, in Minerals and Metals 

Commodity Data Summaries: U.S. Bureau of Mines, 

p. 148–149.

Rathke, A.E., and Morgan, A.T., 1965, Free-machining 

steels: U.S. Patent 3,169,857, assigned to Inland Steel Co., 

February 16.

Wills, Frank, 1982, Inventories grow despite lower output of 

this copper byproduct: Engineering and Mining Journal, 

v. 183, no. 3, March, p. 122–123.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Dollars per pound

Year

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION

Figure 1. Yearend average tellurium price.

Significant events affecting tellurium prices since 1970

1973–80 Price controls in 1973 lifted in December; annual demand doubled stimulated by catalytic uses; reduced production from falloff in copper production and tellurium content of ores; speculation affected prices

1981–86 Demand plummeted in economic recession (1981–82); major catalytic use ended, and consumer inventories 

returned to marketplace; slumping domestic steel market

1987–88 Demand for free machining steel increased; reduced tellurium production; inventory depletion; price doubled

1993–2000 Oversupply situation developed as demand decreased faster than production declined, and inventories swelled

1999 Change in price data series to average yearend price for United Kingdom lump and powder; 99.95-percent-pure 

tellurium from U.S. producer price quotes

2004–05 Increase in demand from electronics producers in China

2007–10 Increases in demand from solar cell manufacturers and widespread speculative buying
Tellurium (Te) 177

Table 1. Annual average tellurium price.

[Values in dollars per pound. NA Not available]

Year Price

1917 3.00

1918 NA

1919 NA

1920 NA

1921 NA

1922 2.25

1923 2.00

1924 NA

1925 NA

1926 2.02

1927 1.91

1928 1.91

1929 2.07

1930 1.70

1931 2.00

1932 2.00

1933 2.00

1934 2.00

1935 2.00

1936 2.00

1937 2.00

1938 2.00

1939 2.00

1940 1.75

Year Price

1941 1.75

1942 1.75

1943 1.75

1944 1.75

1945 1.75

1946 1.75

1947 1.75

1948 1.75

1949 1.75

1950 1.75

1951 1.75

1952 1.75

1953 1.75

1954 1.75

1955 1.75

1956 1.63

1957 1.75

1958 1.70

1959 2.33

1960 3.50

1961 4.63

1962 6.00

1963 6.00

1964 6.00

Year Price

1965 6.00

1966 6.00

1967 6.00

1968 6.00

1969 6.00

1970 6.00

1971 6.00

1972 6.00

1973 6.05

1974 8.34

1975 9.28

1976 10.33

1977 17.15

1978 20.00

1979 20.00

1980 19.77

1981 14.00

1982 12.00

1983 9.25

1984 11.25

1985 10.00

1986 10.00

1987 20.00

1988 35.00

Year Price

1989 34.00

1990 31.00

1991 32.00

1992 35.00

1993 32.00

1994 26.00

1995 23.00

1996 21.00

1997 19.00

1998 18.00

1999 15.00

2000 2.27

2001 3.18

2002 3.18

2003 4.54

2004 10.21

2005 49.90

2006 27.22

2007 49.90

2008 79.38

2009 58.97

2010 100.36

Notes:

1917–22, U.S. producer price for 99-percent-pure tellurium, in U.S. Geological Survey Mineral Resources of the United States.

1923–29, Domestic price for 99-percent-pure tellurium, in Engineering and Mining Journal.

1930–36, New York price for 99-percent-pure tellurium, in Engineering and Mining Journal.

1937–39, New York price for 99-percent-pure tellurium, in Engineering and Mining Journal, Metal and Mineral Markets.

1940–66, New York price for 99.7-percent-pure tellurium, in Engineering and Mining Journal, Metal and Mineral Markets.

1967–80, New York price for 99.7-percent-pure tellurium, in Metals Week.

1981–94, U.S. producer price quotes for 99.7-percent-pure tellurium, in U.S. Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook.

1995–99, U.S. producer price quotes for 99.7-percent-pure tellurium, in U.S. Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook.

2000–08, Average yearend price for United Kingdom lump and powder, 99.95-percent-pure tellurium originally reported as dollars per kilogram, in Mining 

Journal.

2009, Average September 14 price for United Kingdom lump and powder, 99.95-percent-pure tellurium originally reported as dollars per kilogram, in Mining 

Journal.

2010, Average annual price IWH Rotterdam price for 99.99-percent-pure tellurium originally reported as dollars per kilogram, in Metal-Pages.com.
178 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

Thallium (Tl)

by David E. Guberman

Thallium, a soft, bluish gray, malleable heavy metal, 

was discovered by Sir William Crookes in 1861 while he was 

making spectroscopic determinations for tellurium on residues 

from a sulfuric acid plant. Although the metal is relatively 

abundant in the Earth’s crust at a concentration estimated 

to be about 0.7 part per million (close to antimony, germanium, and molybdenum), it exists mostly in association with 

potassium minerals in clays, soils, and granites and, thus, is 

generally considered to be commercially unavailable in this 

form. Several thallium minerals, containing from 16 percent 

to 60 percent thallium, occur in nature as sulfide or selenide 

complexes with antimony, arsenic, copper, lead, and silver but 

are rare and have no commercial importance as sources of this 

element. The major source of commercial thallium is the trace 

amounts found in copper, lead, zinc, and other sulfide ores. 

Thallium is recovered as a byproduct from the flue dust and 

residues generated during the roasting and smelting steps in 

the processing of these ores.

From 1912 to 1930, thallium compounds were used 

extensively for medicinal purposes; for example, in the treatment of ringworm, dysentery, and tuberculosis. The narrow 

margin between toxicity and therapeutic benefit, however, 

eventually eliminated the practical use of these compounds. 

The use of thallium salts as poison for rodents and later as 

insecticide led to increased use of thallium from 1925 to 1965; 

significant quantities of the rodenticide were used by the U.S. 

military to control rat infestation in World War II operations 

(Lee, 1971, p. 1–4; Smith and Carson, 1977, p. 9–16).

The postwar price of thallium metal reached $18.00 per 

pound after the wartime allocation and price control system 

imposed on thallium chemicals was lifted by the War Production Board in 1946 (table 1). In 1965, the U.S. Government 

issued regulations prohibiting the household use of thalliumcontaining rodent poisons and insecticides because of their 

extreme toxicity to humans, resulting in a significant decline 

in thallium consumption. By 1973, all retail sales of these 

chemicals had been banned in the United States. Although 

thallium consumption declined sharply as a result of the loss 

of these markets, the decline was offset to some extent by 

increases in the uses of thallium in electronic applications, 

chemical synthesis, and such minor uses as components for 

solders, low-melting alloys, low-temperature thermometers, 

and optical glasses. During this period of transition in the enduse sectors, the published domestic producer price remained 

at $7.50 per pound through 1980 (fig. 1). In 1981, ASARCO 

Incorporated, the only domestic producer of thallium and 

thallium compounds, stopped production. From 1981 through 

1988, the price of thallium metal was based upon information 

obtained from import data. By 1988, thallium prices had risen 

to $80.00 per pound.

In the 1990s, consumption of thallium metal and compounds continued in most of the established end uses; for 

example, semiconductor material for selenium rectifiers, an 

activator in gamma radiation detection equipment, an electrical resistance component in infrared radiation detection and 

transmission equipment, a crystalline filter for light diffraction in acousto-optical measuring devices, an alloy with 

mercury for low-temperature measurements, an addition to 

glass to increase its refractive index and density, a catalyst 

or intermediate in the synthesis of organic compounds, and 

a high-density liquid for sink-float separation of minerals. In 

addition, research activity has been ongoing to develop hightemperature superconducting materials for such applications 

as magnetic resonance imaging, storage of magnetic energy, 

magnetic propulsion, and electric power generation and 

transmission. Since 1989, numerous patents have been issued 

for and reports have been published on the preparation of 

high-temperature superconductor compounds containing thallium. The use of radioactive thallium compounds for medical 

purposes in cardiovascular imaging to detect heart disease has 

increased steadily since the early 1980s.

With the advent of these newer and potentially safer uses 

for thallium, the demand for higher purity thallium metal, 

either in research or practical application, has increased. 

Consistent with the greater need for high-purity thallium and 

the lack of published or otherwise available producer or dealer 

quotations for thallium metal of any purity since 1988, the 

price of thallium metal has been based upon the metal price 

listed in retail supplier catalogues. The price of 99.999-percent-pure thallium granules has risen steadily from $250.00 

per pound in 1989 to $580.00 per pound in 1998. This price 

increase, an average of about 15 percent per year, reflects an 

increase in the retail price, but this increase is higher than the 

rate of inflation. To some extent, the price increase is probably 

the result of a greater demand for high-purity thallium.

The price for thallium metal increased significantly in 

2006 as the supply worldwide became relatively tight. The 

average price for high-purity granules and rod was nearly 

three times higher than the average price during the previous 

3 years. China instituted a policy of eliminating toll-trading 

tax benefits on exports of thallium that began in 2006, thus 

contributing to the shortage on the world market. In July 2010, 

China canceled a 5-percent value-added-tax rebate on exports 

of many minor metals, including fabricated thallium products, 

in order to help satisfy its increasing internal demand.
Thallium (Tl) 179

One of the most significant events that affected the global 

thallium market and caused prices to increase in 2009 was 

the shortage of the medical isotope technetium-99, which had 

been widely used by physicians for medical imaging tests 

owing to its availability, relatively low cost, and the superior 

diagnostic quality of images produced with it. The thallium 

isotope 201 was the most common alternative to technetium-99 for use in scans, such as the cardiac-stress test that 

monitors blood perfusion into heart tissue during rigorous 

exercise. In response to the shortage of technetium-99, some 

medical imaging equipment producers increased production 

of thallium isotope 201 in order to meet anticipated demand, 

leading to tightening of the thallium supply. Because thallium 

is used in small quantities in limited applications, commercialquantity pricing data, similar to that for other metals, are not 

available. Pricing changes listed may be caused by changes in 

the source of price quotations.

References Cited

Lee, A.G., 1971, The chemistry of thallium: Amsterdam, 

Netherlands, Elsevier, 336 p.

Smith, I.C., and Carson, B.L., 1977, Trace metals in the 

environment, v. 1—Thallium: Ann Arbor, Mich., Ann Arbor 

Science, 394 p.

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Dollars per pound

Year

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION

Figure 1. Annual average thallium price.

Significant events affecting thallium prices since 1970

1981 Domestic production was terminated; dependence on imports 

1989–98 Used in superconductivity research and new medical applications; traditional uses continued

2006–10 Prices increased, global supplies tight

2009 Thallium prices increased owing to increased demand for use in medical imaging
180 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

Table 1. Annual average thallium price.

[Values in dollars per pound]

Year Price

1942 10.00

1943 10.00

1944 11.00

1945 12.50

1946 14.00

1947 18.00

1948 15.00

1949 14.00

1950 12.50

1951 12.50

1952 12.50

1953 12.50

1954 12.50

1955 12.50

1956 12.50

1957 12.50

1958 7.50

1959 7.50

Year Price

1960 7.50

1961 7.50

1962 7.50

1963 7.50

1964 7.50

1965 7.50

1966 7.50

1967 7.50

1968 7.50

1969 7.50

1970 7.50

1971 7.50

1972 7.50

1973 7.50

1974 7.50

1975 7.50

1976 7.50

1977 7.50

Year Price

1978 7.50

1979 7.50

1980 7.50

1981 40.00

1982 40.00

1983 40.00

1984 35.00

1985 40.00

1986 40.00

1987 60.00

1988 80.00

1989 250.00

1990 265.00

1991 280.00

1992 340.00

1993 360.00

1994 430.00

1995 500.00

Year Price

1996 545.00

1997 580.00

1998 580.00

1999 587.40

2000 587.40

2001 587.40

2002 566.99

2003 589.67

2004 725.75

2005 861.83

2006 2,109.21

2007 2,068.38

2008 2,222.61

2009 2,585.48

2010 2,689.81

Notes:

1942–66, U.S. producer price (99.90-percent-pure thallium), in Engineering and Mining Journal, Metal and Mineral Markets.

1967–80, U.S. producer price (99.90-percent-pure thallium), in Metals Week.

1981–88, Imported dealer price (99.90-percent-pure thallium); private communications with suppliers.

1989–2010, Retail supplier price (99.9990-percent-pure thallium granules), in Aldrich and Alfa Aesar chemicals catalogues.
Tin (Sn) 181

Tin (Sn)

by James F. Carlin, Jr.

Tin was one of the earliest metals known to humanity. 

Because of its hardening effect on copper, tin was used in 

bronze implements as early as 3500 B.C., although the pure 

metal was not used until about 600 B.C. Bronze, a copper-tin 

alloy that can be sharpened and is hard enough to retain a cutting edge, was used in construction tools as well as weapons 

for hunting and war. The geographical separation between tinproducing and tin-consuming nations greatly influenced the 

patterns of early trade routes. Historians believe that, as early 

as 1500 B.C., Phoenicians travelled by sea to the Cornwall 

district of England to obtain tin.

Unique to tin has been its long history of commodity 

“agreements” dating back to 1921. These agreements were 

usually structured between producer countries and consumer 

countries on a complex global basis. The earlier agreements 

tended to be somewhat informal and sporadic; they led to 

the “First International Tin Agreement” in 1956, the first of 

a continuously numbered series that essentially collapsed in 

1985. Through this series of agreements, the International Tin 

Council (ITC) had a substantial influence on tin prices during 

that 29-year period. The ITC was able to support the price of 

tin during periods of low prices by buying tin for its buffer 

stockpile and was able, to some degree, to restrain the price 

during periods of high prices by selling tin from the stockpile 

(table 1). This was an anti-free-market approach, designed 

to assure a sufficient flow of tin to consumer countries and a 

decent profit for producer countries. During the 29-year run 

of the tin agreements, however, it was apparent that the buffer 

stockpile was not sufficiently large, especially to defend the 

artificial ceiling prices. Consequently, during most of those 29 

years, tin prices rose, sometimes sharply, especially from 1973 

through 1980 when rampant inflation plagued the American 

and many foreign economies (fig. 1).

During the late 1970s and early 1980s, the 

U.S. Government tin stockpile was in an aggressive selling 

mode, partly to take advantage of the historically high tin 

prices. The sharp recession of 1981–82 proved to be quite 

harsh on the tin industry, as well as on the other metal-using 

industries of the United States and most industrialized countries. Tin consumption declined dramatically. The ITC was 

able to avoid truly steep declines through accelerated buying 

for its buffer stockpile; this activity required the ITC to borrow 

extensively from banks and metal trading firms to augment its 

resources. The ITC continued to borrow until late 1985, when 

it reached its credit limit. Immediately, a major “tin crisis” 

followed—tin was delisted from trading on the London Metal 

Exchange for about 3 years, the ITC dissolved soon afterward, and the price of tin, now in a free-market environment, 

plummeted sharply to the $4 per pound level (Roskill Information Services Ltd., 1995, p. 283–290). The price of tin has 

remained in that lower range since 1985, except for a diversion to the $5 level in 1989.

From 1990 through 2006, the tin price hovered in the 

$2- to $5-per-pound price range. In 2007, the price rose 

significantly to the $8 level, and in 2008 and 2010, rose to the 

$11 and $12 range, respectively. These price increases, which 

began in 2007, were due to several factors—(a) events in 

China, the world’s leading tin producer, such as mine disasters 

and occasional extensive flooding, which led to shortfalls in 

production; (b) increased world tin consumption, especially in 

Asia, as tin increasingly substituted for lead and some other 

metals because of their toxicity; (c) shortfalls in production 

during certain periods of the world’s second leading tin producer, Indonesia; (d) the winding down of the U.S. Government stockpile of tin so that less tin was available for disposal; 

and (e) the increasing role of investment funds.

During the 1980s and 1990s, a series of drastic and 

widespread worldwide legal restrictions limited or eliminated lead’s usage in many applications owing to its toxicity. 

Since many of these applications used alloys in which lead 

was combined with tin, and tin was often seen as a nontoxic 

metal, tin gradually replaced lead (at least partially) in those 

alloys. This was especially true for solder (often a 70-percent 

tin 30-percent lead alloy for electronic applications in earlier 

decades). By the 1990s, the typical electronics solder composition was more than a 95-percent tin-balance antimony 

or bismuth or silver alloy. These gradual trends boosted tin’s 

global consumption substantially and thus supported higher tin 

prices in the 1980s and 1990s.

Tin production difficulties in Indonesia, the world’s 

second leading tin-producing country, were critical to intermittent tin price increases and decreases in the period from 2002 

to 2009. Some of the Indonesian tin mine output declines were 

due to organizational reconfiguration, some were due to illegal 

mining operations, and some were due to natural occurrences 

such as tsunamis. In 2002, the world’s leading tin mining 

organization, PT Timah, went through a severe streamlining of organizational functions, resulting in such moves as 

halting operations at most of its dredges. From 2002 to 2008, 

the Indonesian Government gradually eliminated as many as 

130,000 illegal tin mining operations. Both these events had 

the effect of decreasing tin supply from Indonesia and thereby 

tending to boost world tin prices.

From 2003 to 2010, various actions by the Government 

of China, the world’s leading tin-producing country, toward 

imposing tin export quotas led to pressures to raise the world 
182 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

tin price. These actions were designed to meet China’s own 

growing domestic tin requirements.

The 2008–09 world economic crisis lowered tin consumption in many countries substantially, especially in durable 

goods consumption categories, such as brass/bronze and 

machinery, which led to a brief price decline in 2009.

Reference Cited

Roskill Information Services Ltd., 1995, The economics of tin: 

London, Roskill Information Services Ltd., 299 p.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Dollars per pound

Year

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION

Figure 1. Annual average tin price.

Significant events affecting tin prices since 1970

1956–85 International Tin Agreements (a continuous series of complex, global, 4-year pacts)

1973–80 Rampant inflation

1981–82 Sharp recession

1980–2010 Increased toxicity issues with lead, leading to increased tin consumption as a lead replacement

2002–08 A period of world steel company (tinplate producers) consolidations and mergers that often resulted in lower 

available world tinplate and increased tin pricess

2002–09 Tin mine and smelter production declined in Indonesia owing to Government closures of illegal tin smelters, 

smuggling, and severe weather

2008–09 Global financial crisis
Tin (Sn) 183

Table 1. Annual average U.S. tin price.

[Values in dollars per pound]

Year Price

1880 0.208

1881 0.208

1882 0.234

1883 0.208

1884 0.181

1885 0.195

1886 0.216

1887 0.249

1888 0.262

1889 0.209

1890 0.214

1891 0.208

1892 0.206

1893 0.201

1894 0.181

1895 0.141

1896 0.132

1897 0.136

1898 0.157

1899 0.251

1900 0.299

1901 0.167

1902 0.268

1903 0.281

1904 0.280

1905 0.314

1906 0.398

1907 0.382

1908 0.295

1909 0.297

1910 0.341

1911 0.423

1912 0.461

Year Price

1946 0.545

1947 0.779

1948 0.993

1949 0.993

1950 0.955

1951 1.271

1952 1.205

1953 0.958

1954 0.918

1955 0.947

1956 1.014

1957 0.963

1958 0.951

1959 1.021

1960 1.014

1961 1.133

1962 1.146

1963 1.166

1964 1.577

1965 1.782

1966 1.640

1967 1.534

1968 1.481

1969 1.644

1970 1.741

1971 1.673

1972 1.775

1973 2.276

1974 3.963

1975 3.398

1976 3.798

1977 5.346

1978 6.296

Year Price

1913 0.443

1914 0.343

1915 0.386

1916 0.435

1917 0.618

1918 0.888

1919 0.633

1920 0.483

1921 0.299

1922 0.326

1923 0.427

1924 0.502

1925 0.579

1926 0.653

1927 0.644

1928 0.504

1929 0.452

1930 0.317

1931 0.245

1932 0.220

1933 0.391

1934 0.522

1935 0.504

1936 0.464

1937 0.543

1938 0.423

1939 0.503

1940 0.498

1941 0.520

1942 0.520

1943 0.520

1944 0.520

1945 0.520

Year Price

1979 7.539

1980 8.460

1981 7.331

1982 6.539

1983 6.548

1984 6.238

1985 5.960

1986 3.832

1987 4.188

1988 4.414

1989 5.202

1990 3.863

1991 3.628

1992 4.024

1993 3.498

1994 3.691

1995 4.156

1996 4.124

1997 3.815

1998 3.733

1999 3.660

2000 3.702

2001 3.149

2002 2.920

2003 3.398

2004 5.473

2005 4.830

2006 5.651

2007 8.995

2008 11.290

2009 8.371

2010 12.400

Notes:

1880–1936, New York price for Grade A Straits (Malaysian) tin (99.85-percent-pure), in Engineering and Mining Journal.

1937–66, New York price for Grade A Straits (Malaysian) tin (99.85-percent-pure), in Engineering and Mining, Journal Metal and Mineral Markets.

1967–76, New York price for Grade A Straits (Malaysian) tin (99.85-percent-pure), in Metals Week.

1976–2010, Metals Week composite price, in Metals Week and Platts (Platt’s) Metals Week.
184 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

Titanium (Ti)

by Joseph Gambogi

Discovered in 1790, titanium is well known as a light 

metal with excellent corrosion resistance (Barksdale, 1966, 

p. 3). Titanium sponge is the most basic form of titanium 

metal and can be produced from the minerals ilmenite, 

leucoxene, and rutile. Titanium metal is consumed primarily 

in the commercial and military aerospace industries. Largescale production capacity of sponge exists in China, Japan, 

Kazakhstan, Russia, Ukraine, and the United States. Unlike 

some metals, titanium is not sold on any market exchanges. 

Although often unspecified, sponge prices are normally based 

on a minimum 93.3-percent titanium content with a Brinell 

hardness of less than 120. Titanium sponge prices normally 

lag market condition because supply agreements are often 

negotiated on an annual basis. Titanium sponge consumption 

precedes aircraft production, and a change in consumption 

often correlates with a change in aircraft orders.

Although commercial production of titanium pigments 

began in the early 1900s, commercially produced titanium 

metal was not available until 1948. During the first two 

decades of the commercial development of titanium metal, 

the price per pound declined significantly (table 1). Cancellation of the Supersonic Transport program in 1971 tended 

to keep demand and prices for titanium sponge low through 

1973. From 1973 through 1981, however, prices rose along 

with generally increasing orders for commercial aircraft and 

other industrial uses (fig. 1). The historic high price in 1981 

and the subsequent price collapse were believed to have been 

accentuated by an overestimation of aircraft orders that did not 

materialize or were later canceled as the aircraft market deteriorated, leaving some producers with substantial inventories 

of titanium metal products to be drawn from during a period 

of lower demand (National Materials Advisory Board, 1983, 

p. 7–22). From 1985 through 1989, titanium metal prices were 

again on the rise, reflecting renewed strength in the commercial aircraft and other industrial markets. Military aircraft programs, such as the B–1B bomber program, also contributed to 

the rise in demand during this period. Owing to this increased 

demand, two of the domestic sponge producers made moderate expansions to their existing capacity during 1988 and 1989 

(Titanium Development Association, 1990, p. 3).

The early 1990s marked the end of the Cold War and the 

beginning of sharp cuts in defense spending. Concurrently, 

commercial aircraft and engine producers were reducing raw 

material inventory levels, causing a significant fall in titanium 

metal demand and prices. Domestic consumption of titanium 

sponge fell by 42 percent in 1991, compared with consumption in the prior year.

Owing to decreased demand and the availability of 

imported material, RMI Titanium Co. closed its 10,900-metric-ton-per-year (t/yr) sponge production plant at Ashtabula, 

Ohio, in 1992 (RMI Titanium Co., 1992, p. 11). The closure 

left two remaining producers in the United States.

In 1993, Titanium Metals Corp. commissioned a 

10,000-t/yr sponge plant at its Henderson, Nev., facility. The 

expansion was based on a derivation of the Kroll process 

called the Vacuum Distillation Process (VDP). According 

to industry reports, the new plant produced a higher quality 

sponge at lower operating costs. Following the commissioning of the VDP plant, much of the old Kroll plant capacity was 

idled (American Metal Market, 1993a).

Imports of titanium sponge rose sharply during the mid1990s. Although it is not apparent from published prices of 

domestic sponge, imports were available at substantially less 

than the domestic published price (American Metal Market, 

1993b). In 1994, the average unit value of imports reached a 

record low of $1.58 per pound. A new use for titanium metal 

in golf club heads led to a resurgence in consumption for 

titanium in 1995 (American Metal Market, 1996). In addition, new commercial aircraft orders rose sharply from 1995 

to 1997 (Aviation Week & Space Technology, 1997). By 

1997, domestic consumption of titanium sponge reached a 

record high of 32,000 metric tons (t). Also in 1997, the total 

value of sponge imports reached a record high. According 

to U.S. Customs statistics, the average unit value of sponge 

imports was $3.42 per pound.

The instabilities in Asian economies caused cancellations 

of aircraft orders in 1998 (Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc., 1998). These cancellations resulted in a moderate 

fall in consumption of titanium during 1998. Although prices 

for titanium metal products were also affected, long-term 

supply agreements between aircraft producers and titanium 

producers helped stabilize prices for some titanium products (Metal Bulletin, 1998). In 1999, titanium consumption 

declined significantly, falling to 18,100 t compared with 

28,200 t in 1998. Weak demand for titanium sponge continued in 2000. Owing to increased construction of commercial 

aircraft, titanium sponge consumption surged to 26,200 t in 

2001; however, the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, 

caused titanium sponge consumption to plummet in 2002 and 

reach a low of 17,100 t in 2003. Titanium prices followed the 

downward trend in consumption, reaching a low of $3.34 per 

pound in 2003. In 2004, the consumption in the aerospace 

industry began to rise along with consumption in the steel 

industry where titanium is used for deoxidation, grain-size 

control, or carbon and nitrogen control and stabilization typi-
Titanium (Ti) 185

cally in interstitial-free, stainless, and high-strength low-alloy 

steels. From 2004 to 2008, titanium sponge consumption and 

prices increased significantly, and producers began projects 

to increase sponge production capacity. The global financial 

crisis that began in 2008 caused consumption and prices of 

titanium to decrease as commercial airlines delayed aircraft 

deliveries. In 2010, titanium consumption from commercial 

aircraft recovered as aircraft producers prepared to expand 

production of new wide-body aircraft lines. Because titanium 

sponge prices normally lag market conditions, prices of titanium sponge were lower in 2010, and continued a downward 

trend that began in 2008.

References Cited

American Metal Market, 1993a, Greater penalty sought 

against CIS’s titanium: American Metal Market, v. 101, 

no. 174, September 9, p. 1.

American Metal Market, 1993b, Titanium prices drop as Timet 

strike continues: American Metal Market, v. 101, no. 247, 

December 27, p. 1.

American Metal Market, 1996, Titanium tees off to a birdie: 

American Metal Market, v. 104, no. 147, September 9, p. 1.

Aviation Week & Space Technology, 1997, Boeing suppliers 

warn of protracted delays: Aviation Week & Space Technology, v. 147, no. 13, p. 22.

Barksdale, Jelks, 1966, Titanium—Its occurrence and technology: New York, The Ronald Press Company, 691 p.

Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc., 1998, Titanium—

A titanic slide: ISRI Commodities Report, v. 4, no. 24, 

December 16, p. 1–2.

Metal Bulletin, 1998, RMI secures new long-term aerospace 

contracts: Metal Bulletin, no. 8253, February 16, p. 13.

National Materials Advisory Board, 1983, Titanium—Past, 

present, and future: Washington, D.C., National Academy 

Press, 209 p.

RMI Titanium Co., 1992, Annual report 1992: Niles, Ohio, 

RMI Titanium Co., 33 p.

Titanium Development Association, 1990, Statistical review 

1980–1989: Dayton, Ohio, Titanium Development 

Association, 27 p.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Dollars per pound

Year

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION

Figure 1. Average yearend titanium sponge price.
186 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

Significant events affecting titanium prices since 1970

1971 Research for Supersonic Transport terminated

1975–76 Military aircraft production peak (F–14 and F–15)

1977–81 Rapid increase in orders for commercial aircraft

1982–84 Collapse of the commercial aircraft market

1984–86 Production of B–1B bombers

1985–89 Renewed strength in the commercial aircraft market

1988–89 Increases in U.S. sponge production capacity

1990–94 Reductions in military and commercial aerospace (post Cold War)

1992 Sodium-reduction sponge plant closed at Ashtabula, Ohio

1993 Titanium sponge plant commissioned at Henderson, Nev.

1994–97 Surge in consumer goods and commercial aerospace orders

1997–98 Asia financial crisis

2001 September 11 terrorist attacks

2004–08 Increased consumption from commercial aircraft and steel 

2008–09 Global financial crisis

2009 Titanium sponge plant commissioned at Rowley, Utah

Table 1. Average yearend titanium sponge price.

[Values in dollars per pound]

Year Price

1941 5.25

1942 5.25

1943 5.25

1944 5.25

1945 5.25

1946 5.25

1947 6.50

1948 5.50

1949 5.00

1950 5.00

1951 5.00

1952 5.00

1953 5.00

1954 4.50

1955 3.45

1956 2.75

1957 2.25

1958 1.82

Year Price

1959 1.60

1960 1.60

1961 1.60

1962 1.46

1963 1.44

1964 1.32

1965 1.32

1966 1.32

1967 1.32

1968 1.32

1969 1.32

1970 1.32

1971 1.32

1972 1.32

1973 1.44

1974 2.25

1975 2.70

1976 2.73

Year Price

1977 2.98

1978 3.28

1979 3.98

1980 7.02

1981 7.65

1982 5.55

1983 5.70

1984 4.13

1985 3.75

1986 4.10

1987 4.10

1988 4.50

1989 5.05

1990 4.75

1991 4.75

1992 3.75

1993 3.75

1994 4.38

Year Price

1995 4.38

1996 4.38

1997 4.38

1998 4.38

1999 4.11

2000 3.53

2001 3.62

2002 3.38

2003 3.34

2004 3.57

2005 5.34

2006 6.16

2007 7.14

2008 7.09

2009 5.78

2010 4.87

Notes:

1941–51, 1952–65, 1972–82, prices are an average of a range, in Engineering and Mining Journal, Metal and Mineral Markets.

1952–65, 1972–82, published by the U.S. Bureau of Mines, but origin is unknown.

1967–71, prices are an average of a range, in Metals Week. 

1983–98, prices are an average of a range, in American Metal Market.

1999–2010, unit value of landed duty-paid imports (Japan and Russia).
Tungsten (W) 187

Tungsten (W)

by Kim B. Shedd

In the 16th century, smelters in what is now Germany 

observed that something was reducing their tin yield. This 

material, which was called “Spuma Lupi” in Latin and 

“Wolfram” in German, turned out to be wolframite, now 

one of the two commercially important minerals mined for 

the metal tungsten. Two hundred years later, in the mid-18th 

century, European chemists and mineralogists extracted tungsten from wolframite and scheelite, the other commercially 

important tungsten mineral. The name “tungsten,” from the 

Swedish “tung sten” or “heavy stone,” was first used for the 

mineral we now call scheelite. Today the name for the element 

is either a derivative of “tungsten” or “wolfram,” depending 

on the country and language spoken, and it is identified in 

the periodic table by the letter “W” (International Tungsten 

Industry Association, 2009, p. 25–29). 

Tungsten has the highest melting point of all metals, one 

of the highest densities, and, when combined with carbon, is 

almost as hard as diamond. These and other properties make 

it useful in a wide variety of important commercial, industrial, 

and military applications. One hundred years ago, the main 

use of tungsten was as an additive to steel, and scientists were 

just beginning to research the use of tungsten filaments in light 

bulbs. Today, although lamp filaments may be the most familiar use of tungsten, the leading use is in cemented carbides. 

Cemented carbides (also called hardmetals) are wear-resistant 

materials used by the construction, metalworking, mining, 

and oil and gas drilling industries. Tungsten metal contacts, 

electrodes, filaments, wires, and other products are used in 

electrical, electronic, heating, lighting, and welding applications. Tungsten is also used to make corrosion- and wearresistant alloy parts and coatings; specialty steels for pipes, 

tools, and valves; superalloys for turbine engine parts; and 

tungsten heavy alloys (also called “heavy metal alloys”) for 

armaments, heat sinks, and high-density applications, such as 

weights and counterweights. Tungsten, often in combination 

with less-dense materials, is used as a substitute for lead in 

ammunition, fishing weights, hunting shot, radiation shielding, 

wheel weights, and other high-density applications. Chemical 

uses of tungsten include catalysts, inorganic pigments, and 

high-temperature lubricants.

Tungsten prices and many tungsten statistics are quoted 

in units of tungsten trioxide (WO3

). The short ton unit, used in 

the United States, is 1 percent of a short ton (20 pounds) and 

tungsten trioxide is 79.3 percent tungsten. Therefore, a short 

ton unit of WO3 equals 20 pounds of WO3 and contains 7.19 

kilograms (15.86 pounds) of tungsten. The metric ton unit, 

used in most other countries, is 1 percent of a metric ton (10 

kilograms). A metric ton unit of WO3 contains 7.93 kilograms 

(17.48 pounds) of tungsten.

Tungsten is not traded on any exchange, such as the 

London Metal Exchange Ltd. Sales are negotiated between 

producers and consumers or between traders and consumers. Prices published by trade journals, such as Metal Bulletin, Platts Metals Week, and Ryan’s Notes, are derived from 

information collected from consumers, producers, and traders. 

This approach has the potential for bias or manipulation, particularly when a reported price change is the result of a small 

tonnage of material traded (Roskill Information Services Ltd., 

2011, p. 223).

Historically, the main reference price for tungsten was 

the price of tungsten concentrates. In the early 1990s, the trade 

in tungsten concentrates decreased, and the market shifted 

towards the price of the intermediate product ammonium paratungstate as a reference price (International Tungsten Industry 

Association, 1997, p. 32). Prices of tungsten concentrates and 

ammonium paratungstate generally follow similar trends. One 

would expect the price of ammonium paratungstate to exceed 

that of concentrate by an amount equivalent to the processing costs to convert concentrate to ammonium paratungstate. 

In 1992, however, the Metal Bulletin price for ammonium 

paratungstate actually fell below that for concentrate. At that 

time, the normal premium for ammonium paratungstate was 

estimated to be between $23 and $32 per short ton unit. Possible explanations for this unusual pricing situation were the 

availability of very inexpensive feedstock for Chinese ammonium paratungstate plants or Government subsidies for those 

plants (Maby, 1993).

The main forms of tungsten used by downstream consuming industries are ferrotungsten, tungsten carbide powder, tungsten metal powder, and various tungsten chemical 

compounds. Of these materials, ammonium paratungstate and 

ferrotungsten are the ones for which prices are most often provided. Prices for tungsten concentrates are also still available. 

Historically, tungsten prices have fluctuated widely as the 

market alternated between periods of scarcity and oversupply. 

General economic conditions and industrial activity, China’s 

position as the world’s leading producer, and more recently, 

China’s position as its leading consumer, have significantly 

influenced the tungsten market over time. The following additional factors have also been cited as influences on the tungsten market and price: changes in availability from Communist or formerly Communist countries; purchases for or sales 

from various Government stockpiles; trade controls; buildup 

or reduction in inventories held by industry; fluctuations 

in production by a large number of widely dispersed small 
188 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

producers; differing political, social, and economic objectives 

of producing countries; industry fragmentation in that most 

countries that produce tungsten are not large consumers; rapid 

shifts in demand; increases in demand in support of military 

activity; interest rates; exchange rates; and inflation or deflation (Engineering and Mining Journal, 1967; Burrows, 1971, 

p. 1–7 and 36–37; Rawlings, 1974; Lincoln, 1986; Mines 

Dynacor Inc., 2007, p. 21).

From the late 1950s to early 1960s, the tungsten market 

was characterized by oversupply and low prices (table 1). This 

was a result of several factors. Following the Korean conflict, high prices combined with U.S. Government programs 

to stockpile tungsten and to encourage domestic production 

by purchasing tungsten concentrates from U.S. mines at a 

fixed price led to an increase in production (Geehan, 1955; 

Grainger, 1960). This was followed by reduced demand when 

the U.S. Government’s tungsten acquisition program was 

completed and increased supply as a result of the disposal of 

stockpiled ore from the United Kingdom, the resumption of 

shipments from Korea, and increased offers of tungsten from 

China and Russia (Grainger, 1960, 1962).

In late 1963, exports of tungsten from China, North 

Korea, and Russia suddenly decreased significantly from those 

of previous years. The apparent withdrawal of these countries 

from the world market combined with an increase in demand 

from Eastern Europe resulted in a supply squeeze and a significant increase in prices by late 1964. The high prices led to 

an increase in mine production from non-Communist countries 

and increased recycling of tungsten-bearing scrap. In 1965, the 

U.S. Government began a long-term sales program of tungsten 

concentrates from Defense Production Act inventories. The 

increase in supply from these sources was not enough 

to balance the loss of tungsten from Communist countries 

during a period of strong worldwide demand (Grainger, 1965; 

Engineering and Mining Journal, 1967). As a result, the annual 

average U.S. price of tungsten concentrate in 1966 was more 

than four times greater than that of 1963.

Prices remained relatively high during the late 1960s 

owing to strong demand and only limited exports of tungsten 

from China. United States tungsten consumption was strong, 

at least in part, in support of the war in Vietnam and for 

increased production of tungsten carbide balls for ballpoint 

pens and studs for automobile snow tires. Sales of tungsten 

concentrates from the U.S. Government at fixed prices contributed to the stabilization of the U.S. market (Stevens, 1969). 

Between March 1966 and December 1973, the U.S. Government’s General Services Administration (GSA) “off-the-shelf” 

fixed prices for tungsten concentrates were quoted as the price 

of concentrates in the U.S. market (fig. 1). Between October 

1969 and February 1970, European prices for tungsten concentrates quoted in Metal Bulletin increased from approximately 

$46 per short ton unit to a high of approximately $80 per short 

ton unit (Ratzker, 1971). The increase in European prices was 

reported to be primarily the result of a continued high level of 

industrial activity in combination with the absence of significant quantities of tungsten shipments from China. In 1969, as 

a result of stable fixed prices in the United States, increasing 

market prices in Europe, and the availability of tungsten from 

the U.S. Defense Production Act inventories, the United States 

became a net exporter of tungsten concentrates for the first 

time in history (Stevens, 1970).

A worldwide economic slowdown in 1971 led to reduced 

demand for tungsten, particularly from the machine tool 

and steel industries (Mining Journal, 1972). During 1972 

and 1973, economic conditions improved, and demand for 

tungsten increased. United States prices were quoted at the 

GSA “off-the-shelf” fixed price of $55 per short ton unit. 

European prices decreased to a low of approximately $30 per 

short ton unit by late 1972. The downward trend in European 

prices during a period of increasing demand was attributed to 

substantial inventories overhanging the market. By late 1972–

early 1973, the rate of consumption had increased enough to 

cause a significant reduction in inventory levels, and European 

prices began to increase (Rawlings, 1974).

Toward the end of 1973, the GSA discontinued its “offthe-shelf” fixed-price sales of tungsten concentrates in favor 

of monthly sales on a sealed-bid basis (Stevens, 1975). From 

1974 through 1976, awards of tungsten concentrates from 

U.S. Government stockpiles were at unit values close to the 

prevailing European prices quoted in Metal Bulletin. In 1974, 

high levels of tungsten consumption in the United States and 

Europe and reduced inventory levels resulted in an increase 

in the Metal Bulletin price to more than $100 per short ton 

unit (Rawlings, 1975). The Metal Bulletin price was relatively 

stable in 1975 in spite of recessionary economic conditions 

in Western World markets and a corresponding decrease in 

tungsten demand. During the next 2 years, tungsten prices 

increased sharply to record highs as a result of worldwide 

inflation, strong buying by Eastern European countries, a 

recovery in Western World demand, and reports of decreased 

quantities of tungsten offered by China (Ho, 1977). Metals 

Week began publishing U.S. spot prices for tungsten concentrates in January 1977 after a hiatus of more than 10 years. By 

March 1977, this price exceeded $160 per short ton unit.

By late 1977–early 1978, the price of tungsten concentrates began to decline. Although mine production from the 

Western World had steadily increased, it was tungsten exports 

from China and releases from U.S. Government stockpiles that 

balanced a shortfall in production relative to consumption. The 

decline in prices during 1978 was attributed to the following 

factors: an increase in Western World tungsten inventories during 1977; reduced demand in Western Europe, particularly for 

ferrotungsten; increased Western World mine production; and 

the absence of Eastern European buyers as a significant influence in the Western World market (Thurber, 1979).

Between late February 1979 and late October 1981, the 

average of Metals Week prices for tungsten concentrate was 

relatively stable in the $120- to $140-per-short-ton-unit range. 

By late 1981, the worldwide recession began to affect tungsten 

demand. In addition, China was exporting steadily increasing 

amounts of tungsten concentrates and intermediate products to 

Western World markets (Thurber, 1982; Ho, 1986). In the mid-
Tungsten (W) 189

1980s, the availability of low-priced intermediate products 

from China contributed to the downward trend in the price of 

tungsten concentrates. There was a marked change from concentrate prices governing the price of intermediate products to 

intermediate product prices governing concentrate prices (Ho, 

1986). The price of concentrate trended downward to a low of 

$28 per short ton unit by late 1986, and then generally trended 

upward to $64 per short ton unit in 1988. From September 

1988 to late 1990, the price steadily decreased to $31 per short 

ton unit. The decrease in price during a 3-year period of strong 

Western World consumption was attributed to continued oversupply of Chinese tungsten (Bunting, 1991).

In early 1991, China’s State Council listed tungsten 

as a special metal under State protection, which resulted in 

restrictions on its mining, processing, and export (Zhang, 

1991; Huang, 2009). Later in the year, the U.S. Government 

determined that imports of Chinese tungsten ores and concentrates were being sold in the United States at less than fair 

market value and imposed a 151 percent antidumping duty 

on them. By mid-1991, the concentrate price increased to $67 

per short ton unit. During the next 2 years, the price steadily 

fell to $28 per short ton unit. This price decline was attributed 

to continued exports of tungsten materials from China during a period of reduced demand as a result of the worldwide 

economic recession, a decrease in imports by former Soviet 

countries following the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, 

and destocking by consumers (Maby, 1993). By 1993, imports 

of Chinese tungsten concentrates and intermediate products 

had grown to 75 percent of market economy countries’ supply 

of primary tungsten (Bunting, 1994). Added to the increasing 

supply from China were exports of tungsten materials from 

Russia and other countries of the former Soviet Union.

By 1994, almost all of the tungsten mines in market 

economy countries had ceased production, and Chinese mine 

production was at a low level as a result of the persistent low 

price of tungsten concentrates (Bunting, 1997). In 1994, the 

world economy and industrial activity improved, demand for 

tungsten increased, and prices began to rise (Maby, 1995). By 

mid-1995, the concentrate price rose to $70 per short ton unit. 

This led to large releases of tungsten from Government stockpiles in China, Kazakhstan, and Russia; releases of inventories 

from Russian mines; and an increase in mine production. By 

early 1996, an oversupply situation had developed. As a result, 

prices decreased and mine production was reduced. By late 

1996, most of the inventories that had been overhanging the 

market had been drawn down (Bunting, 1997). 

From 1997 to 1999, prices continued to decrease owing 

to plentiful supplies from China, Russia, and other countries 

in the former Soviet Union. In 1998, two events occurred that 

would have an effect on future supply—the U.S. Congress 

authorized the sale of tungsten materials from the National 

Defense Stockpile, which would add to supply, and the 

Chinese Government began to restructure its tungsten industry, 

which would reduce supply. With respect to demand, China’s 

growing economy resulted in a steady increase in Chinese 

tungsten consumption that continued through 2010 (Bunting, 

1999; Maby, 1999, p. 2, 8–9; Shedd, 2000, p. 80.1–80.2, 80.4; 

Zhu, 2004; Fang, 2011, p. 20). 

In 1999, the Chinese Government began to increase 

control of its domestic tungsten industry to conserve its 

resources and ensure supplies to meet anticipated domestic 

demand. During the next 12 years, the Chinese Government 

controlled tungsten production and exports by closing illegal 

mines; limiting the number of exploration, mining, and export 

licenses; limiting or forbidding foreign investment; imposing 

constraints on mining and processing; establishing quotas 

on mine production and exports; adjusting export quotas to 

favor value-added downstream materials and products; and 

shifting from export tax rebates to export taxes. In addition, 

Chinese tungsten industry associations set minimum prices 

for tungsten materials. The near doubling of ammonium 

paratungstate prices between mid-2000 and mid-2001 was 

attributed to Chinese export quotas, which limited supplies of 

tungsten intermediates to leading processors, and may have 

been enhanced by panic buying or consumer stockpiling. The 

decrease in prices during the latter part of 2001 was attributed 

to a severe reduction in production of tungsten end products 

resulting from a slowdown of the world economy, which was 

compounded by the terrorist attacks in the United States on 

September 11; an increase in smuggling of primary tungsten 

materials, including tungsten concentrates, from China; and 

the buildup of inventories by consumers and traders. Demand 

for tungsten in 2002 was almost 25 percent lower than that of 

2001 (American Metal Market, 1999; Metal Bulletin, 1999a, 

b; Zhou, 2000; Avocet Mining PLC, 2001; Ross, 2001, p. 2, 5, 

13; North American Tungsten Corp. Ltd., 2002; Interfax Ltd., 

2007; Roskill Information Services Ltd., 2007, p. 214; Fang, 

2011, p. 3–4, 23–24, 44, 46, 48).

In 2004 and 2005, tight supplies of tungsten concentrates 

within China led to reduced production and exports of ammonium paratungstate and ferrotungsten, which resulted in steep 

increases in world tungsten prices. In 2005, ammonium paratungstate prices in the United States and Europe reached highs 

that were three times higher than the maximum prices in 2004. 

Various factors were cited as contributing to the shortage 

of tungsten concentrates and price increases. In early 2004, 

drought conditions in the tungsten mining regions of southern 

China resulted in severe shortages of electrical power, which 

affected the production of tungsten concentrates. In addition, 

a major Chinese producer announced that it planned to cease 

operations at 4 of its 11 mines for a period of 6 months as part 

of a reorganization. Other factors included mine closures for 

environmental reasons, withdrawal of Government subsidies 

to tungsten mines, the need for companies to be profitable, 

the realization by mining companies that they controlled the 

market, the lack of new resource development, speculation, 

and increasing demand for tungsten products within China. 

In 2005, tungsten consumption from Europe, Japan, and 

the United States also increased. This period of high prices 

prompted increased interest in developing new mines and 

reopening inactive mines outside of China (Metal Bulletin, 

2004; Wong, 2004; Wong and Magnowski, 2004; Zhu, 2004; 
190 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

Martin, 2005, p. 24, 27; Roskill Information Services Ltd., 

2007, p. 214–15).

After a peak in ammonium paratungstate prices in mid2005, prices remained high, but generally trended slightly 

downward for the next 3 to 4 years. The financial crisis 

in late 2008 and global economic downturn that followed 

had a significant impact on industrial activity and tungsten 

consumption in Europe, Japan, and the United States. In 

late 2008–early 2009, tungsten prices dropped dramatically. 

By mid-2009, U.S. and European ammonium paratungstate 

prices were 35 percent lower than those of 2008. During this 

period, Chinese domestic tungsten consumption remained 

strong, although Chinese exports decreased by more than 40 

percent because of weak demand elsewhere. Global economic 

conditions began to improve in late 2009, and in 2010, world 

tungsten consumption increased to approach that of 2008. As 

a result, tungsten prices began to rise. By yearend 2010, the 

U.S. price of ammonium paratungstate was nearly back to that 

of 2008, and the European price exceeded the high of 2005. 

Some analysts forecast that tungsten supplies could remain 

tight until at least 2013, when sufficient new mine capacity 

could come online to balance demand (Fang, 2011, p. 20, 

26–27; Malaga Inc., 2011, p. 10; North American Tungsten, 

2012, p. 5; Seddon, 2011, p. 7–9, 26). 

References Cited

American Metal Market, 1999, China halts new mining 

permits for 8 minerals: American Metal Market, v. 107, 

no. 103, May 28, p. 5.

Avocet Mining PLC, 2001, Interim results for the six months 

ended 30 September 2001—Chairman’s statement—

Tungsten: London, Avocet Mining PLC news release, 

December 18, 8 p.

Bunting, R.M., 1991, Tungsten—A strong year—But: Engineering and Mining Journal, v. 192, no. 3, March, p. 27–29. 

Bunting, R.M., 1994, Presentation to I.T.I.A. AGM—11/3/94, 

in International Tungsten Industry Association annual 

general meeting, 7th, Huntsville, AL, November 2–4, 1994, 

Proceedings: London, International Tungsten Industry 

Association, 16 p.

Bunting, R.M., 1997, Tungsten—Can the industry meet future 

demand?: Engineering and Mining Journal, v. 198, no. 3, 

March, p. 37–41. 

Bunting, R.M., 1999, Tungsten: Engineering and Mining 

Journal, v. 200, no. 3, March, p. 43–46.

Burrows, J.C., 1971, Tungsten—An industry analysis: 

Lexington, MA, D.C. Heath and Co., 287 p.

Engineering and Mining Journal, 1967, Tungsten: Engineering 

and Mining Journal, v. 168, no. 2, February, p. 165–167.

Fang, Jiyun, 2011, Update of China tungsten market and 

its forecast: International Tungsten Industry Association 

Annual General Meeting, 24th, Nice, France, September 

20–22, 2011, Presentation, 54 p.

Geehan, R.W., 1955, Tungsten, in Metals and minerals (except 

fuels): U.S. Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook 1952, v. I, 

p. 1066–1082. 

Grainger, P.E., 1960, Tungsten, in Annual review 1960: 

Mining Journal, p. 41.

Grainger, P.E., 1962, Tungsten, in Annual review 1962: 

Mining Journal, p. 41.

Grainger, P.E., 1965, Tungsten, in Mining annual review 1965: 

Mining Journal, p. 48–49.

Ho, Eric, 1977, Tungsten, in Mining annual review 1977: 

Mining Journal, p. 82–83.

Ho, Eric, 1986, Tungsten, in Mining annual review 1986: 

Mining Journal, p. 73.

Huang, Guoping, 2009, The background and analysis of 

relevant policies and reforms to tungsten industry in China: 

International Tungsten Industry Association Annual General Meeting, 22d, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 

September 16–17, 2009, Presentation, 5 p.

Interfax Ltd., 2007, China to ban foreign investment in scarce 

metal resource development: China Metals Report Weekly, 

v. 6, issue 41, November 3–9, p. 9–10.

International Tungsten Industry Association, 1997, Tungsten: 

London, International Tungsten Industry Association, 33 p.

International Tungsten Industry Association, 2009, Tungsten: 

London, International Tungsten Industry Association, 134 p.

Lincoln, G.M., Jr., 1986, Tungsten—Bleak market environment: Engineering and Mining Journal, v. 187, no. 3, 

March, p. 59–61.

Maby, Michael, 1993, Tungsten, in Metals and minerals 

annual review 1993: Mining Journal, p. 72–73.

Maby, Michael, 1995, Tungsten, in Metals and minerals 

annual review 1995: Mining Journal, p. 63–64.

Maby, Michael, 1999, Market report: International Tungsten 

Industry Association International Tungsten Symposium, 

8th, Fukuoka, Japan, October 12–15, 1999, Presentation, 

15 p.

Malaga Inc., 2011, Annual information form relating to the 

year ended December 31, 2010: Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 

Malaga Inc., 28 p.
Tungsten (W) 191

Martin, Robert, 2005, China tungsten today: Platts Steel 

& Ferroalloys Conference—2005, Pittsburgh, PA, 

June 14–15, 2005, Presentation, 50 p.

Metal Bulletin, 1999a, China sets floor price for tungsten: 

Metal Bulletin, no. 8396, July 26, p. 8.

Metal Bulletin, 1999b, China shakes up tungsten industry: 

Metal Bulletin, no. 8383, June 10, p. 8.

Metal Bulletin, 2004, Chinese APT prices push above 

$70 per mtu: Metal Bulletin, no. 8829.4, February 13, p. 3.

Mines Dynacor Inc., 2007, Annual information form relating 

to the year ended December 31, 2006: Montreal, Quebec, 

Canada, Mines Dynacor Inc., 30 p.

Mining Journal, 1972, Tungsten, in Mining annual review 

1972: Mining Journal, p. 80–83.

North American Tungsten Corp. Ltd., 2002, Management 

discussion—For the three months ended September 30, 

2001—Tungsten market: The Canadian Depository for 

Securities Ltd., 4 p.

North American Tungsten Corp. Ltd., 2012, Annual management discussion and analysis 2011: Vancouver, British 

Columbia, Canada, North American Tungsten Corp. Ltd., 

January 27, 34 p. 

Ratzker, Menno, 1971, Tungsten: Engineering and Mining 

Journal, v. 172, no. 3, March, p. 149–150.

Rawlings, J.W., 1974, Tungsten—‘73 market firmed, but GSA 

remains pricing key: Engineering and Mining Journal, 

v. 175, no. 3, March, p. 130–131.

Rawlings, J.W., 1975, Tungsten—Prices take off in 

‘74 on good demand and lack of surplus inventories: 

Engineering and Mining Journal, v. 176, no. 3, March, 

p. 133–134.

Roskill Information Services Ltd., 2007, The economics of 

tungsten: London, United Kingdom, Roskill Information 

Services Ltd., 9th ed., 220 p.

Roskill Information Services Ltd., 2011, Tungsten—Market 

outlook to 2016: London, United Kingdom, Roskill 

Information Services Ltd., 10th ed., 230 p.

Ross, Brian, 2001, Tungsten: Ryan’s Notes Ferroalloys Conference, Orlando, Fla., October 28–30, 2001, Presentation, 

19 p.

Seddon, Mark, 2011, Review of recent events in the 

market and status of mining projects: International Tungsten 

Industry Association Annual General Meeting, 24th, Nice, 

France, September 20–22, 2011, Presentation, 37 p.

Shedd, K.B., 2000, Tungsten, in Metals and minerals: 

U.S. Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook 1998, v. I, 

p. 80.1–80.16.

Stevens, R.F., Jr., 1969, Tungsten: Engineering and Mining 

Journal, v. 170, no. 3, March, p. 130–133.

Stevens, R.F., Jr., 1970, Tungsten: Engineering and Mining 

Journal, v. 171, no. 3, March, p. 106–109.

Stevens, R.F., Jr., 1975, Tungsten, in Metals, minerals, and 

fuels: U.S. Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook 1973, v. I, 

p. 1245–1261. 

Thurber, W.C., 1979, Tungsten—U.S. consumption at highest 

level since 1974: Engineering and Mining Journal, v. 180, 

no. 3, March, p. 139–143.

Thurber, W.C., 1982, Tungsten—Production and consumption drop as economies weaken: Engineering and Mining 

Journal, v. 183, no. 3, March, p. 98–100.

Wong, K.L., 2004, Mine shutdowns deepen tungsten supply 

concerns: Metal Bulletin, no. 8838, April 19, p. 18.

Wong, K.L., and Magnowski, Daniel, 2004, Chinese FeW 

exporters push for further increases: Metal Bulletin, 

no. 8830, February 23, p. 18.

Zhang, Qi, 1991, China tungsten in for dramatic decline in 

’92: American Metal Market, v. 99, no. 171, September 6, 

p. 4.

Zhou, Juqiu, 2000, Re-organization of China’s non-ferrous 

metals industry: International Tungsten Industry Association, Annual General Meeting, 13th, Washington, D.C., 

September 27–28, 2000, Presentation, 4 p.

Zhu, Guang, 2004, An update of China tungsten market: International Tungsten Industry Association, Annual General 

Meeting, 17th, Lisbon, Portugal, September 27–29, 2004, 

Presentation, 7 p.
192 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Dollars per short ton unit

Year

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION

Figure 1. Annual average tungsten price.

Significant events affecting tungsten prices since 1970

1970–89 Disposal of tungsten concentrates from U.S. Government stockpiles 

1970–73 U.S. Government sold stockpiled tungsten at fixed “off-the-shelf” prices

1970–74 Improved economic conditions; strong demand for tungsten; reduction in inventory levels 

1973 U.S. Government sales method for stockpiled tungsten changed from fixed price to sealed bid

1976–77 Recovery in Western World tungsten demand (during the Cold War era, Western World referred to North American Treaty Organization members and other countries aligned with the United States, and was distinguished 

from Eastern Bloc countries under Soviet influence and third world countries), strong buying by Eastern European countries, limited sales of tungsten concentrates from China

1978 Reduced demand for tungsten in Western Europe; increased Western World mine production and inventories; 

absence of Eastern European buyers

1979–2000 Increasing dominance of China as global supplier of tungsten 

1981–82 Sharp recession, increase in tungsten exports from China

1991 Chinese Government listed tungsten as a protected resource; U.S. antidumping duty imposed on Chinese concentrates; dissolution of the Soviet Union

1992 Start of tungsten exports to the world market from Russia and other countries of the former Soviet Union 

1994 Improved global economic conditions and increase in industrial activity

1994–95 Large releases of tungsten from Government stockpiles in China, Kazakhstan, and Russia; releases of Russian 

mine stocks; increase in mine production

1998–2010 Steady increase in Chinese tungsten consumption

1999 U.S. Government resumed sales of stockpiled tungsten for the first time since 1989

1999–2010 Chinese Government increased control of domestic tungsten production and exports

2001 Chinese export quotas limited the supply of tungsten intermediates

2001–02 Slowdown in world economy

2004–05 Tight supplies of tungsten concentrates in China, followed by an increase in global demand

2006 Chinese Government began a steady reduction of annual export quotas for tungsten materials

2008 Chinese domestic consumption of tungsten exceeded exports for the first time

2008–09 Global financial crisis and economic downturn caused decrease in non-Chinese tungsten consumption
Tungsten (W) 193

Table 1. Annual average tungsten price.

[Values in dollars per short ton unit]

Year Price

1959 13

1960 19

1961 17

1962 12

1963 9

1964 15

1965 23

1966 38

1967 43

1968 43

1969 43

1970 49

1971 55

Year Price

1972 55

1973 55

1974 80

1975 83

1976 104

1977 149

1978 128

1979 128

1980 130

1981 129

1982 97

1983 77

1984 78

Year Price

1985 62

1986 42

1987 46

1988 54

1989 76

1990 61

1991 71

1992 67

1993 49

1994 68

1995 89

1996 75

1997 69

Year Price

1998 60

1999 51

2000 60

2001 90

2002 65

2003 63

2004 83

2005 215

2006 266

2007 258

2008 253

2009 185

2010 194

Notes: Annual average prices were derived from price changes reported in the following sources:

1959–66, tungsten ore (wolframite) in New York, “ordinary quality,” excluding duty, in American Metal Market.

1967–73, tungsten ore, domestic quote reflecting the U.S. Government’s General Services Administration price, in American Metal Market’s Metal Statistics 

1972 and Metal Statistics 1974.

1974–76, tungsten ore, minimum 65-percent tungsten trioxide, European market, excluding duty, in U.S. Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook, converted from 

pounds sterling per metric ton unit as reported in Metal Bulletin.

1977–88, tungsten ore; minimum 65-percent tungsten trioxide; U.S. spot price; cost, insurance, and freight; excluding duty, in Metals Week.

1989–2010, ammonium paratungstate, U.S. free market, in Metal Bulletin.
194 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

Vanadium (V)

by Désirée E. Polyak

Vanadium was first described by Andrés Manuel del 

Río in 1801. He had isolated it from lead ores from Zimapan, 

Mexico (Busch, 1961, p. 18). At the start of the 20th century, 

vanadium remained little more than a chemical curiosity with 

no commercial value because of its rarity and high cost. The 

supply and cost restrictions were significantly altered in the 

early years of the 20th century with the discovery of rich 

vanadium deposits in several countries, including the United 

States. In 1905, the American Vanadium Co. was established 

to extract vanadium from ores discovered in Colorado (Kuck, 

1985, p. 985). Commercial production began shortly thereafter.

Two main prices are associated with vanadium—one is 

for the ferroalloy ferrovanadium, and the other for vanadium 

pentoxide; prices for vanadium ore and metal are not published. Because much of the world’s ferrovanadium is made 

from vanadium pentoxide, the price for vanadium pentoxide 

has been described in this report.

Owing in part to the absence of free market trading, the 

vanadium pentoxide price has historically been a producer 

price. This has resulted in low volatility and relatively stable 

prices, showing a gradual upward trend in current dollars, for 

the period from 1959 through 1988 (table 1). Since the late 

1980s, the vanadium pentoxide price appears to have become 

more volatile. Given the close relationship between the vanadium and steel markets, the outlook for steel production has a 

large bearing on the outlook for the vanadium market. 

The vanadium industry has moved through several cycles 

of oversupply and undersupply that have resulted in sharp and 

rapid price movements. Long periods of oversupply, usually 

the result of investments in new capacity during brief periods of high prices, have often led to cutbacks in utilization 

of capacity, which eventually led to the next price spike. The 

rapid increase in supply from 1994 to 2002 was largely the 

result of increased vanadium production from Australia and 

China. The increased Chinese vanadium supply was primarily 

vanadium-bearing slag that was coproduced with iron from 

magnetite ore. In 2002, consumption of vanadium decreased 

and prices began to decrease (fig. 1). Many of the larger 

producers did not react to the price decreases and maintained 

production at high levels. Prices dropped to historically low 

levels, and many smaller companies were forced to reduce 

production, suspend operations, or completely shut down 

plants (Lee, 2006).

In 2003, at about the same time as some of these closures, 

vanadium consumption started to rise sharply owing to a sharp 

rise in global steel production. The balance quickly tipped 

to undersupply, with the result that inventories began to fall 

and the price of vanadium climbed sharply. The large market 

inventory that had built up before 2002 helped cushion the gap 

between the soaring demand and reduced production through 

2004; however, in early 2005, the stockpile was exhausted. 

The market reacted and the vanadium price increased dramatically to unprecedented levels. In China, the price rose to 

such a high level that there was a sudden cutback in the use of 

vanadium. Vanadium production increased throughout 2005, 

and by late 2005, the market was in better balance and prices 

decreased to an annual average of $7.85 per pound vanadium 

pentoxide (Bunting, 2006). 

In 2006 through early 2008, vanadium consumption and 

production were in balance and prices increased, but nowhere 

near the levels of 2005. Prices hit a high of $18.40 per pound 

in June 2008. Prices remained high during the second and 

third quarters of 2008 owing to the effects of a large earthquake in China, which not only forced mines to close, but also 

caused damage to rail infrastructure, stagnating production 

of vanadium. At the same time, South Africa suffered from 

electricity shortages and power cuts. 

Prices began to dramatically decrease at the beginning 

of the fourth quarter of 2008 owing to the global financial 

downturn. However, during the recession, the vanadium pentoxide price did not fall to the lows experienced between 1998 

and 2003. Many producers outside China and Russia quickly 

cut production in 2009, which helped control inventories and 

thus limited the dramatic fall in prices. Prices stabilized in late 

2009 and recovered in 2010 as growth continued in China and 

other emerging markets, although prices did not reach their 

previous historic highs.

References Cited

Bunting, R.M., 2006, Vanadium—How market developments 

affect the titanium industry: International Titanium Association Conference, San Diego, Calif., October 3, Presentation, 

17 p.

Busch, P.M., 1961, Vanadium—A materials survey: U.S. 

Bureau of Mines Information Circular 8060, 95 p.

Kuck, P.H., 1985, Vanadium, in Mineral facts and problems: 

U.S. Bureau of Mines Bulletin 675, p. 895–915.

Lee, John, 2006, The vanadium market: GoldInsider, June 26, 

7 p. 
Vanadium (V) 195

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Dollars per pound

Year

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION

Figure 1. Annual average vanadium pentoxide price.

Significant events affecting vanadium prices since 1970

1988–89 Low supply owing to technical problems at some producers, and to increased demand from steel and aerospace 

industries

1993 Market oversupply all year; price fell despite increase in consumption

1997 Disposal of last vanadium pentoxide holdings in the U.S. National Defense Stockpile 

2005 Surge in global steel production created an unprecedented demand for vanadium that reduced stockpiles, and sent 

prices to an alltime high

2008–09 Global financial crisis; prices declined
196 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

Table 1. Annual average vanadium pentoxide price.

[Values in dollars per pound. Minimum 98 percent vanadium pentoxide anhydride]

Year Price

1959 1.38

1960 1.38

1961 1.38

1962 1.38

1963 1.25

1964 1.15

1965 1.15

1966 1.25

1967 1.25

1968 1.15

1969 1.51

1970 1.25

1971 2.85

Year Price

1972 1.85

1973 1.85

1974 2.08

1975 2.14

1976 3.38

1977 3.47

1978 3.47

1979 3.57

1980 3.07

1981 3.14

1982 2.77

1983 2.75

1984 2.36

Year Price

1985 2.50

1986 2.53

1987 2.95

1988 3.40

1989 6.10

1990 3.07

1991 2.63

1992 2.18

1993 1.55

1994 1.56

1995 3.38

1996 3.08

1997 4.01

Year Price

1998 5.48

1999 2.00

2000 1.82

2001 1.37

2002 1.34

2003 2.21

2004 6.03

2005 16.25

2006 7.85

2007 7.40

2008 13.53

2009 6.03

2010 6.92

Note:

1959–2010, published in Metal Bulletin.
Zinc (Zn) 197

Zinc (Zn)

By Amy C. Tolcin

Zinc use before zinc smelting involved the use of zinc 

compounds that resulted from the smelting of lead and copper 

ores. Zinc’s presence in early bronze was most likely accidental and dependent on the ores used. By the time brass was 

developed and manufactured, zinc compounds were recognized and deliberately mixed with copper by the process of 

cementation. In the sixth century, the Chinese were credited 

with producing the first articles of zinc metal, and by the 13th 

century, zinc was smelted on a large scale in India. Zinc smelting technology was thought to have been brought to Europe 

from Asia around 1730. By the end of the 18th century, largescale commercial smelting had begun in Europe. In the United 

States, the first zinc metal was produced in 1835 at the Arsenal 

in Washington, D.C., for the manufacture of brass standard 

units of weights and measures. The U.S. zinc mining industry 

commercially began around 1850 with the production of compounds from zinc ores in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. By 

the turn of the century, U.S. zinc smelting activity had grown 

rapidly, mainly developing in Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, and 

Pennsylvania. The development of the vast Joplin, Mo., zinc 

mining district in the early 1870s was stimulated by the growing use of zinc by U.S. industry. During the first half of the 

20th century, two pricing centers emerged—St. Louis, Mo., 

and New York, N.Y. The New York price was usually higher 

because it included shipping charges. Because the prevailing 

method of production was pyrometallurgical, yielding Prime 

Western (PW) zinc, both prices were based on that grade. 

Higher grades of zinc cost more because of the expense of 

additional refining.

During the 1960s, the East St. Louis, Ill., price of zinc 

remained stable, which can be attributed partially to Government policies pertaining to stockpile programs and import 

quotas and tariffs (table 1). The price increase in this decade 

was about 13 percent. In 1965, import quotas were lifted, and 

Public Law 89–322, authorizing the first of the annual zinc 

disposals from the Government stockpile, was enacted. In 

1971, the importance of the East St. Louis price diminished 

when a major producer began to include shipping charges 

in its price quotation. The emergence of the New York price 

coincided with Metals Week becoming the main pricing 

medium for zinc in the United States.

Because price controls were in force from 1971 through 

1973 and any increase of price had to be approved by the 

U.S. Cost of Living Council, zinc prices increased only gradually (fig. 1). After price controls were abolished, the price for 

high-grade (HG) zinc metal rose abruptly, nearly doubling 

by mid-1975. For the next 11 years, the annual average price 

fluctuated within an $0.18-per-pound band (Jolly, 1993).

By 1980, more than a decade after electrolytic refining 

had become dominant in the production of domestic zinc, HG 

was made the base grade for pricing purposes, and Metals 

Week introduced its weighted average price, which it based 

on daily sales of HG. The largest increase in the history of 

the zinc price began with a small $0.04-per-pound increase in 

November 1987, and escalated to a $0.20 increase in February 

1989. The main impetus for this steep increase was tightness 

of supply brought about by strong world demand; strikes, technical problems at some smelters, and hurricane-related delays 

of zinc shipments from Mexico were also contributing factors. 

In the 1980s, U.S. refinery production supplied only about 

one-third of domestic demand. As a result, world price became 

the dominant factor in setting the domestic price. 

Outside of the United States, the world pricing basis 

for zinc has essentially been the price quoted by the London 

Metal Exchange Ltd. (LME), which introduced its first zinc 

contract in 1915. In order to stabilize the sometimes volatile 

LME prices, a group of non-U.S. zinc producers established 

the European Producer Price (EPP) in 1964. Later, dissatisfaction with the EPP pricing system, mainly as it related to the 

settlement price of zinc concentrate and the determination of 

smelter treatment charges, led to the reemergence of LME zinc 

quotations as the principal basis for world zinc pricing (Jolly, 

1997, p. 218–221). The choice of an LME basis was further 

solidified when the LME switched from British pounds to 

U.S. dollars for all its transactions in 1998.

During the 1990s, the price for refined zinc remained 

rather stable, reflecting the supply and demand of the market.

In 2000, zinc prices fell sharply during the last quarter 

of the year as U.S. economic activity slowed during that time. 

In 2001, prices continued to decrease owing to an oversupply in the metal market, mainly caused by substantial Chinese 

exports and low global demand. Many Chinese smelters were 

prompted to export zinc metal to take advantage of higher 

international prices as compared with those in the domestic 

market. Prices were also suppressed during this time by a 

significant decline in automobile sales in the United States. In 

2002, the price of zinc on the LME reached its lowest level in 

15 years. Smaller companies that operated small underground 

mines or low-capacity smelters could not absorb prolonged 

financial losses and were forced to either temporarily suspend 

production or close entire operations. Larger companies with 

ample financial resources and diversified production were in 

better position to withstand the downturn of the zinc industry. 

Some even increased production in order to take advantage of 

economies of scale. In 2003, zinc prices shifted upward, coinciding with the metal market moving out of a supply surplus 
198 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

and into balance. Increased global demand for zinc was largely 

supported by China’s rapidly growing economy and infrastructure, while production was constrained by curtailments and 

mine closures that were implemented as a result of low prices 

during the late 1990s and early 2000s. In 2005, zinc metal 

consumption between January and November was almost 

1 percent higher than that of the similar period of 2004, which 

was enough to push the supply-demand balance into a deficit. 

A rapid price increase took place in 2006 as a result 

of several factors—a 15-year low in LME stocks of zinc, 

increased world demand, tight world supply, and investment 

buying. Many zinc mines reopened or expanded during this 

time, causing the supply deficit for refined zinc to narrow, 

and by 2008, the metal market was back in surplus. However, 

monthly average zinc prices strengthened during the first quarter of 2008 in conjunction with most other base metals. Global 

monthly zinc consumption continued to increase during the 

first half of 2008 owing predominantly to increasing consumption in China, which offset decreases reported in Europe and 

the United States as economic activity slowed in these areas. 

Thereafter, global consumption began to deteriorate, moderately in the third quarter, then more sharply during the fourth 

quarter as the financial crisis spread globally. Sharply lower 

vehicle sales and a slowdown in the construction industry 

largely were responsible for the decline in zinc consumption 

during this period. 

Declining zinc prices in 2008 led to several mine 

closures, mostly during the second half of the year. Junior 

mining companies were also unable to advance projects owing 

to reduced access to capital. Investment in new mining projects declined along with falling zinc prices. Global economic 

activity continued to contract during the first half of 2009, 

with the notable exception of China and India. Global zinc 

consumption began to recover during the second quarter of 

2009. As global economic activity began recovering during 

the third quarter, global demand for zinc began to increase. 

Despite the zinc metal market being in surplus during 2009, 

average monthly zinc prices increased during the course of the 

year, possibly owing to speculative investment. Prices then 

began to decline in the first half of 2010, and then rebounded 

during the second half of the year. Global economic activity 

expanded during 2010, albeit at a sluggish pace.

References Cited

Jolly, J.H., 1993, Zinc, in Metal prices in the United States 

through 1991: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 191–195.

Jolly, J.H., 1997, U.S. zinc industry: Baltimore, Md., American Literary Press, Inc., 312 p.

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Dollars per pound

Year

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION

Figure 1. Annual average zinc price.
Zinc (Zn) 199

Significant events affecting zinc prices since 1970

1971–73 Price controls in the United States; slow price increase

1975–82 Stockpile sales terminated; declining production

1982 Recession; prices decreased

1983–89 Period of sustained economic growth; stagnating domestic production; high zinc imports and prices

1987–89 Limited supply of zinc metal; strong world demand

2002–06 Increasing zinc consumption in China outpaces production; prices increased

2008–09 Global economic crisis; prices declined
200 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

Table 1. Annual average zinc price.

[Values in dollars per pound]

Year Price

1875 0.070

1876 0.072

1877 0.060

1878 0.049

1879 0.052

1880 0.055

1881 0.052

1882 0.053

1883 0.045

1884 0.044

1885 0.043

1886 0.044

1887 0.046

1888 0.049

1889 0.050

1890 0.055

1891 0.050

1892 0.046

1893 0.040

1894 0.035

1895 0.036

1896 0.039

1897 0.041

1898 0.046

1899 0.058

1900 0.044

1901 0.041

1902 0.048

1903 0.054

1904 0.051

1905 0.059

1906 0.061

1907 0.058

1908 0.046

Year Price

1909 0.054

1910 0.054

1911 0.056

1912 0.068

1913 0.055

1914 0.051

1915 0.142

1916 0.136

1917 0.089

1918 0.080

1919 0.070

1920 0.078

1921 0.047

1922 0.057

1923 0.066

1924 0.063

1925 0.076

1926 0.073

1927 0.062

1928 0.060

1929 0.065

1930 0.046

1931 0.036

1932 0.029

1933 0.040

1934 0.042

1935 0.043

1936 0.049

1937 0.065

1938 0.046

1939 0.051

1940 0.063

1941 0.075

1942 0.083

Year Price

1943 0.083

1944 0.083

1945 0.083

1946 0.087

1947 0.105

1948 0.136

1949 0.122

1950 0.139

1951 0.180

1952 0.162

1953 0.109

1954 0.107

1955 0.123

1956 0.135

1957 0.114

1958 0.103

1959 0.115

1960 0.130

1961 0.116

1962 0.116

1963 0.120

1964 0.136

1965 0.145

1966 0.145

1967 0.139

1968 0.135

1969 0.147

1970 0.153

1971 0.161

1972 0.178

1973 0.207

1974 0.360

1975 0.390

1976 0.370

Year Price

1977 0.344

1978 0.310

1979 0.373

1980 0.374

1981 0.446

1982 0.385

1983 0.414

1984 0.486

1985 0.404

1986 0.380

1987 0.419

1988 0.602

1989 0.820

1990 0.746

1991 0.528

1992 0.584

1993 0.462

1994 0.493

1995 0.534

1996 0.511

1997 0.646

1998 0.514

1999 0.535

2000 0.556

2001 0.440

2002 0.386

2003 0.406

2004 0.525

2005 0.671

2006 1.589

2007 1.544

2008 0.889

2009 0.779

2010 1.020

Notes:

1875–1904, New York price for Prime Western zinc (98-percent-pure), in Ingalls, W.R., Lead and Zinc in the United States, McGraw-Hill, N.Y., 1980, p. 342.

1905–70, St. Louis/East St. Louis producer price for Prime Western zinc, in American Metal Market/Metal Statistics.

1971–79, U.S. Dealers Prime Western delivered price, in Metals Week.

1980–93, U.S. Dealers High Grade zinc (99.9-percent-pure) delivered price, in Metals Week.

1994–98, U.S. Dealers Special High Grade zinc (99.99-percent-pure) delivered price, in Platt’s Metals Week.

1999–2010, North American Special High Grade zinc (99.995-percent-pure) delivered price, in Platts Metals Week.
Zirconium (Zr) 201

Zirconium (Zr)

By Joseph Gambogi

Martin H. Klaproth discovered the element in Germany 

in 1789 by analyzing zircon (Weeks and Leicester, 1968). The 

first impure zirconium metal was produced by Jöns Jakob 

Berzelius in 1824 (Berzelius, 1825). Commercial quantities of the ductile metal were not produced until 100 years 

later when Anton Eduard van Arkel and Jan Hedrik de Boer 

discovered the iodide, or crystal bar, process (van Arkel and 

de Boer, 1925). Powdered zirconium metal was available on 

domestic markets as early as 1930, when it was used primarily for its pyrophoric and alloying properties. Principal uses 

were for ammunition primers, vacuum-tube getters, flash 

powder used in photography, and corrosion-resistant steel 

alloys. An economic process to produce zirconium metal 

sponge (Kroll, or magnesium-reduction, process) was developed in the mid-1940s and became commercially available 

in the early 1950s (Etherington, Dalzell, and Lillie, 1955, p. 

1–5). Zirconium sponge is used in the production of zirconium 

metal and alloys, especially for use in nuclear fuel cladding, 

corrosion-resistant piping in chemical processing plants, and 

heat exchangers. Crystal bar, which is a very high-purity form 

of zirconium metal that is used mostly in research and special 

applications, is not covered in this report.

In January 1945, the U.S. Bureau of Mines (USBM) 

began research to develop a commercial process for making zirconium sponge metal (Etherington, Dalzell, and Lillie, 

1955, p. 1). By 1947, the USBM was operating a 27-kilogramper-week pilot plant in Albany, Oreg., using the Kroll process. In response to the U.S. Navy’s interest in zirconium for 

possible use in nuclear-powered submarines, capacity at the 

pilot plant was expanded in 1949 [11,800 kilograms (kg)], 

1950, and twice in 1951 (Shelton and others, 1956, p. 1). By 

1951, USBM capacity had reached about 136,000 kilograms 

per year (kg/yr). That same year, commercial price quotations 

for zirconium sponge began at $22 per kilogram. In 1952, the 

Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) contracted with Carborundum Metals Co., Akron, N.Y., to supply the metal for 5 

years. By 1955, the Carborundum plant was producing more 

sponge than was needed for the U.S. Navy’s nuclear submarine program. At this time, the USBM’s zirconium plant was 

converted to a metallurgical research facility. From 1959 to 

1977, the price of zirconium sponge remained fairly stable, 

averaging from about $14 to $17 per kilogram and peaking in 

the 1960s (table 1). The decline in the 1970s was also attributed to the slowing of the nuclear submarine program and the 

use of substitute materials for commercial powerplants. Beginning in 1978, prices for zirconium sponge increased (fig. 1). 

The substantial price increase has been attributed primarily to 

the U.S. economy because lagging U.S. economic activity and 

double-digit inflation increased operating costs throughout the 

industry. The twofold price increase for zirconium sponge may 

have been associated with the 50 percent reduction in capacity by the sole domestic producer, the cost of implementing 

process environmental controls to regulate naturally occurring 

radioactive materials, and the continued demand for replacement fuel cladding and structural repairs at nuclear powerplants (Templeton, 1993).

In the 1980s and 1990s, the use of zirconium sponge in 

military and commercial nuclear powerplants, heat exchangers, and specialty chemical piping for corrosive environments 

overshadowed the use of the metal in powder and crystal bar 

applications (Hedrick, 1989). With no new domestic construction of nuclear powerplants, domestic demand for zirconium 

metal grew only slightly in the 2000s.

Although nuclear power construction in much of the 

world leveled off, nuclear power in Asia grew significantly. As 

of April 2010, in east and south Asia, there were 112 nuclear 

power reactors in operation, 37 under construction, and plans 

to construct an additional 84 (World Nuclear Association, 

2010.) 

Increasing global demand and rising prices have led 

domestic producers to plan expansions. In 2009, ATI Wah 

Chang was increasing nuclear-grade zirconium sponge production capacity at its Albany, Oreg., facility to about 3,630 

metric tons per year (t/yr) (Allegheny Technologies Inc., 

2010, p. 3). Westinghouse Electric Co. made an agreement 

with the State Nuclear Power Technology Co., Ltd. (SNPT) to 

construct a nuclear-grade zirconium sponge plant at Nantong, 

Jiangsu Province, China. The plant was expected to supply 

nuclear-grade sponge to Westinghouse’s Western Zirconium Plant in Ogden, Utah, and the market in China. SNPT 

expected to produce up to 1,000 t/yr of nuclear sponge within 

3 years (World Nuclear News, 2009). 

Because there are only a few producers of zirconium, 

published prices have not been available since 2002. U.S. 

imports of unwrought zirconium are included under the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule category 8109.20 that includes 

all unwrought zirconium, including bar, sponge, powder, and 

waste and scrap. The import value of unwrought zirconium 

from France was considered to be the best available price for 

zirconium; however, because this price may include a variety 

of material, it may not accurately reflect market conditions.

Prices for zirconium metal from 2000 to 2010 reflected 

growing global demand and reached a peak of $99.76 per 

kilogram in 2010. In 2004, prices peaked because of rising 

costs of raw materials, energy, and other costs. The price peak 

in 2010 was believed to have been caused by rising consump-
202 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

tion by the nuclear industry. Increasing global demand for 

nuclear powerplants and corrosion-resistant industrial process 

equipment was expected to correspond to an increase in future 

demand for zirconium metal. 

References Cited

Allegheny Technologies Inc., 2010, ATI annual report 2009: 

Pittsburgh, Pa., Allegheny Technologies Inc., April 5, 

114 p., accessed July 1, 2010, via http://ir.atimetals.com/

phoenix.zhtml?c=98187&p=irol-sec.

Berzelius, J.J., 1825, Zirconium reducirt aus flusfspathfaurem Zirconkali, und einige Eigenschaften der Zirconerde 

[Zirconium obtained by the reduction of potassium-zirconium fluoride, and certain properties of zirconium earth 

(oxide)]: Leipzig, Germany, (Poggendorf), Annalen der 

Physik, v. 4, p. 121–156.

Etherington, H., Dalzell, R.C., and Lillie, D.W., 1955, Zirconium and its applications to nuclear reactors, chap. 1 of The 

metallurgy of zirconium: New York, McGraw-Hill, 18 p. 

Hedrick, J.B., 1989, Zirconium and hafnium, in Metals and 

minerals: U.S. Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook 1988, 

v. I, p. 1049–1057.

Kalish, H.S., 1953, The preparation of zirconium powder, 

chap. 5 of Zirconium and zirconium alloys: Cleveland, 

Ohio, American Society for Metals, p. 5–36. 

Shelton, S.M., and others, 1956, Zirconium—Its production 

and properties: U.S. Bureau of Mines Bulletin 561, 180 p. 

Templeton, D.A., 1993, Zirconium, in Metal prices in the 

United States through 1991: U.S. Bureau of Mines, 

p. 197–199.

van Arkel, A.E., and de Boer, J.H., 1925, Preparation of 

pure titanium, zirconium, hafnium, and thorium metal: 

Zeitschrift für Anorganische und allgemeine Chemie, 

v. 148, no. 1, p. 345–350.

Weeks, M.E., and Leicester, H.M., 1968, Discovery of the elements (7th ed.): Easton, Pa., Journal of Chemical Education, 

p. 517–520.

World Nuclear Association, 2010, Asia’s nuclear energy 

growth: London, United Kingdom, accessed at World 

Nuclear Association, April, accessed October, 12, 2011, at 

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf47.html.

World Nuclear News, 2009, Westinghouse in Chinese zirconium JV: London, United Kingdom, World Nuclear News, 

April 22, accessed July 7, 2010, at http://www.worldnuclear-news.org/C-Westinghouse_in_Chinese_zirconium_

JV-2204094.html.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Dollars per kilogram

Year

Price

1992 dollars

EXPLANATION

Figure 1. Yearend zirconium sponge metal price.
Zirconium (Zr) 203

Significant events affecting zirconium prices since 1970

1977–78 Number of producers reduced to one; inflation and lack of competition; demand increased for high-purity specialty powders and metal

2004 Price increases driven by rising costs of raw materials, energy, and other costs

2008 China planned to significantly expand atomic energy production

2010 Rising consumption by the nuclear industry and increased raw material costs

Table 1. Yearend zirconium sponge metal price.

[Values in dollars per kilogram]

Year Price

1959 13.78

1960 14.05

1961 13.78

1962 13.50

1963 16.53

1964 16.53

1965 16.53

1966 16.53

1967 16.53

1968 13.23

1969 13.78

1970 13.78

1971 13.78

Year Price

1972 13.78

1973 13.78

1974 13.78

1975 13.78

1976 13.78

1977 15.98

1978 26.46

1979 23.15

1980 26.46

1981 31.97

1982 31.97

1983 31.97

1984 31.97

Year Price

1985 31.97

1986 31.97

1987 31.97

1988 33.07

1989 33.07

1990 23.15

1991 23.15

1992 23.15

1993 23.15

1994 23.15

1995 23.15

1996 23.15

1997 23.15

Year Price

1998 23.15

1999 23.15

2000 23.15

2001 25.50

2002 25.50

2003 37.79

2004 51.23

2005 19.63

2006 20.56

2007 33.55

2008 40.89

2009 40.01

2010 99.76

Notes: 

1959–62 and 1969–2002, prices are an average of a range, converted from pounds, in American Metal Market.

1963–67, prices are an average of a range, converted from pounds, in Engineering and Mining Journal.

1968, prices are an average of a range, converted from pounds, Wah Chang Albany Corp., Albany, Oreg.

2003–10, unit value based on the duty-paid unit value of imported unwrought zirconium from France.
204 Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010

Appendix 1. Price Deflators

[Consumer Price Index - All urban consumers]

Year 1992=1.000

1959 4.821

1960 4.740

1961 4.692

1962 4.646

1963 4.585

1964 4.526

1965 4.454

1966 4.330

1967 4.201

1968 4.032

1969 3.823

1970 3.616

1971 3.464

Year 1992=1.000

1972 3.356

1973 3.160

1974 2.846

1975 2.608

1976 2.466

1977 2.315

1978 2.152

1979 1.933

1980 1.703

1981 1.543

1982 1.454

1983 1.409

1984 1.350

Year 1992=1.000

1985 1.304

1986 1.280

1987 1.235

1988 1.186

1989 1.131

1990 1.073

1991 1.030

1992 1.000

1993 0.971

1994 0.947

1995 0.921

1996 0.894

1997 0.874

Year 1992=1.000

1998 0.861

1999 0.842

2000 0.815

2001 0.792

2002 0.780

2003 0.763

2004 0.743

2005 0.718

2006 0.696

2007 0.677

2008 0.652

2009 0.654

2010 0.643

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The Consumer Price Index (CPI) (All urban consumers) is used as an economic indicator. As the most widely used measure of inflation, the CPI is an indicator of the effectiveness of government policy. In addition, business executives, labor leaders, and other private citizens use the index as a guide in making 

economic decisions. 

The CPI also is used as a deflator of other economic series. The CPI and its components are used to adjust other economic series for price change and to translate 

these series into inflation-free dollars. 

For more information about the CPI, please see the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Web site at http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm.

U.S. Geological Survey—Metal Prices in the United States Through 2010—Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5188