# 2010 Minerals Yearbook

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

# CEMENT [ADVANCE RELEASE]

July 2012CEMENT—2010 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 16.1 

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

Production of portland and masonry cement in the United States in 2010 totaled 66.4 million metric tons (Mt) (table 1). This was nearly 4% higher than production in 2009, but output in 2009 was the lowest since 1983. Measured by sales to domestic fi nal customers, domestic consumption of cement in 2010 declined slightly to 70.5 Mt (table 9) and thereby replaced 2009 as the lowest sales volume year since 1983. However, the decline in 2010 was mostly because of very low sales volumes in the fi rst 2 months of the year; sales for the remainder of the year showed a 3% increase overall. In perspective, consumption in 2010 was 57.5 Mt, or 45%, lower than the record level in 2005. Whereas the large (nearly 27%) decline in sales volumes in 2009 was accompanied by comparatively modest (4%) price decreases, prices fell substantially in 2010 and the overall value of sales fell by nearly 8% to about $6.5 billion (tables 1, 11–13). Based on typical portland cement mixing ratios in concrete, the delivered value of concrete (excluding mortar) in the United States was estimated to be at least $37 billion in 2010. World cement production increased by 9% to 3.31 billion metric tons (Gt).

Percentage or other changes expressed in this report compare activity in 2010 with that of 2009 unless speci fi ed otherwise. Except where otherwise indicated, data and trends in this report exclude those in Puerto Rico. Cements covered in this report are mainly limited to those hydraulic varieties broadly classi fi ed as portland cement (including blended cement and other varieties listed in table 15) and (or) masonry cement (including portland-lime and plastic cements); these are the binding agents in concrete and most mortars. A few other types of hydraulic cements and (or) clinker (notably aluminous cement) are included in some of the trade data (tables 16–18 and 21) and within the world production data (table 22). Except where incorporated as components within fi nished portland (blended) or masonry cements or as raw feed for clinker, this report’s tables exclude supplementary cementitious materials (SCM), such as fl y ash, other pozzolans, and ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS). Sales data for blended (also called composite) cements listed separately from portland cement are available in the monthly Mineral Industry Surveys reports of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).

The bulk of this report is based on data compiled from USGS annual questionnaires sent to cement and clinker manufacturing plants and associated distribution facilities and import terminals, and some terminals that are independent of U.S. cement manufacturers. For 2010, questionnaires were received from 154 of 159 facilities canvassed, a response rate of 97%, which included all of the production sites. Not all forms were returned fully completed, but the data received included 100% of the 2010 cement and clinker production and 99% of the total cement sales tonnages tabulated in this report. For 2009, questionnaires were received from 152 of 156 facilities canvassed, a response rate of 97%, which included all of the production sites. If missing data could not be obtained by followup telephone inquiries, they were estimated based on monthly data or past annual reporting. For both years, the data exclude several importers that have yet to participate in the surveys. To the degree that they are independent of the participating companies, sales by the missing importers for 2009 and 2010 are estimated to be no more than an additional 1% of the total portland cement sales tonnages shown in this report. General background information on cement and its manufacture and on the USGS cement canvasses is given in van Oss (2005). Government Programs and Environmental Issues

Various Government programs provide funding and direction for public sector construction and are thus of importance to cement consumption levels when budgets are actually established. By comparison to some other construction materials, however, concrete can be less sensitive to rapid swings in construction spending levels, owing, in part, to lead times preparatory to concrete construction and the common need to coordinate between State and Federal agencies. Because of very low cement sales volumes, it was likely that very little of the 2009 Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) (“stimulus”) funding was spent in 2009 on concrete construction projects, it had been widely anticipated that concrete projects would bene fi t from ARRA spending in 2010. By yearend 2010, continued lackluster cement consumption levels indicated that little stimulus spending had gone to concrete projects in that year either.

Environmental issues pertaining to the cement industry are mostly associated with the manufacture of the intermediate product called clinker. In making clinker, the consumption of large amounts of raw materials and fuels leads to large emissions of carbon dioxide (CO 2 

### ), and can yield signi fi cant emissions (if not scrubbed out) of nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), mercury and some other metals, volatile organic carbon compounds, and particulates. Increasingly, these emissions are regulated or are being considered for regulation or reregulation.

The largest volume emissions are of CO 2 

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

### by the U.S. cement industry in 2010 was calculated to be in the range of 0.87 to 0.92 metric ton (t) of CO 2 

### per ton of clinker produced; the high end incorporates fuel combustion emissions calculated using “standard” heat values for the fuels consumed (table 7), and the low end incorporates heat values actually reported by the individual plants. Both ratios are unchanged from those of 2009, and include a standard emissions factor from calcination16.2 [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2010 

### of limestone of 0.51 t of CO 2 

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

### emissions can be reduced in the calculation in proportion to the calcium oxide contributed by noncarbonate alternative raw materials such as ferrous slags and coal combustion ashes. This incorporation would allow a reduction of calcination-related emissions of about 2.5% (0.8 Mt) in 2010 and 2.4% (0.7 Mt of CO 2 

### ) in 2009; relative reductions can be signi fi cantly larger for the subset of individual plants that actually burn these alternative raw materials. Certain fuels, including alternative or waste fuels, can either directly reduce plant-level CO 2 

### emissions or may be allowed to be deducted from reported combustion emissions because the fuels are considered to be carbon-neutral (certain biofuels) or because credits may be allowed for their use (certain waste fuels). Fuel deductions have not been made in the averages noted above. Plant-level emissions can be reduced through upgrading to more fuel-ef fi cient kiln line technology. Unit emissions on a fi nished product basis can also be reduced by use of SCM in fi nished cement and in concrete to reduce the clinker content of these products and (or) by allowing the addition of “inert” fi llers to boost cement output without simultaneously boosting clinker output.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has long used methods similar to those used above to calculate and report overall U.S. levels of GHG emissions by various industries; for cement, these methods made use of national-level clinker production data published by the USGS. However, to eventually

re fi ne the determination of U.S. emissions of GHG, the EPA released a fi nal rule for mandatory site/plant-speci fi c reporting of GHG emissions, with reporting to begin in 2010 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2009b). For the cement industry’s CO 2 

### emissions, relevant calculation procedures were covered under Part 98, subpart C (p. 56397–56411) for fuel combustion, and in subpart H (p. 56420–56422) for calcination and related process emissions. The published results of the 2010 mandatory reporting (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2012), combined with USGS data for clinker production, show an average emission of 0.90 t CO 2 

### per ton of clinker, excluding the EPA addition of minor CO 2 

### -equivalent emissions of methane and nitrous oxide (N 2 

### O); this is in close agreement with the USGS estimate noted above.

In September 2010, the EPA issued the fi nal rule pertaining to the national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP), in which new, very low, limits on individual plant emissions of mercury, total hydrocarbons, particulate matter (as a surrogate for nonvolatile metal pollutants), and hydrochloric acid were established for cement plants that do not burn hazardous wastes (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2010c). The fi nal rule revised the emissions limits in the 2009 proposed NESHAP (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2009a); for mercury, the fi nal rule’s standards were 55 pounds of mercury per million short tons of clinker for existing plants (revised from 43 pounds); and 21 pounds of mercury (revised from 14 pounds) for new plants. It remained unclear how many plants could meet the standards using their current mix of raw materials and fuels without installing a mercury scrubber. Likewise, it was unclear how many, if any, plants could meet the NESHAP standards for all four pollutants. The rule provided for a 3-year compliance timeframe.

In June 2010, in response to a 2007 District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals decision vacating several of the de fi nitions within the commercial and industrial solid waste incineration units (CISWI) sections of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the EPA issued proposed new de fi nitions as to what nonhazardous secondary materials would be considered to be solid wastes (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2010a). This ruling potentially would affect the regulatory status of a large number of cement plants because many of them routinely burn a variety of alternative raw materials and fuels instead of, or as partial substitution for, traditional geological raw materials and fuels.

In June, the EPA proposed options for modifying how coal combustion residuals (CCRs, also known as coal combustion products or byproducts), particularly fl y ash, were to be regulated under RCRA. Under one option, CCRs would be classi fi ed as “special waste” and subject to regulation under subtitle C when destined to be land fi lled but not when bene fi cially reused. Under the second option, disposal of the CCRs would essentially remain as currently regulated under subtitle D (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2010b). Concern in the construction sector was that if fl y ash were to be reclassi fi ed as a hazardous waste, even under restricted circumstances, the material would be stigmatized and demand for it would decrease or cease altogether (Goss, 2010).

Production

Output of portland cement increased by 4.2% to 64.5 Mt in 2010 (table 3), after a nearly 26% decline in 2009. Following a weak fi rst quarter, production responded to modest increased sales demand thereafter, but, except for 2009, output for the year remained the lowest since 1991. Although most of the cement import terminals are controlled by the domestic cement producers, with import volumes mainly in response to production shortfalls, closure or idling of some independent import facilities may have stimulated some of the additional domestic production. Production increases and declines among districts were mixed, but most declines were small. A few districts (especially Missouri) showed substantial increases. Yearend stockpiles increased by about 2%.

Overall annual production capacity in 2010 was about 122 Mt, a slight decline resulting from the closure in 2009 of four plants; one each in California, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Missouri. The plant count in 2010 re fl ects these closures, but that in California is somewhat arti fi cial because the 2009 count retained an essentially idle facility that produced a small quantity of masonry cement (hence retained active grinding capacity) in that year but which was considered closed in 2010. In reality, both years show somewhat in fl ated plant counts and grinding capacities, because while certain plants remained of fi cially idle for all of both years, no formal closure announcements for them had been made as of yearend 2010. Most of these idle facilities remained active as distribution terminals.CEMENT—2010 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 16.3 

### Continued weakness in the housing, especially multifamily units, construction sector led to a 3.4% decline in masonry cement production in 2010 to just 1.9 Mt (table 4), the lowest level since at least 1954. The percentage decline in 2010, however, was much lower than the 35% decrease in production in 2009 relative to that in 2008.

With multiple subsidiaries of common parents combined under the larger subsidiary’s name and with joint ventures apportioned, the 10 leading companies at yearend 2010, in descending order of portland cement production, were CEMEX, Inc., Holcim (US) Inc., Lafarge North America Inc., Lehigh Cement Co., Buzzi Unicem USA Inc. (including Alamo Cement Co.), Ash Grove Cement Co., Essroc Cement Corp., Texas Industries, Inc. (TXI), Eagle Materials Inc., and St. Marys Cement Group. The U.S. industry continued to be heavily consolidated, with the 5 leading cement companies, combined, contributing nearly 60% of total U.S. portland cement production, and the 10 leading companies accounting for 82% of total production. Of the above named companies, all except Ash Grove and TXI were foreign owned as of yearend, and for the U.S. industry overall, about 81% of total cement output was by foreign-owned companies.

Clinker output in 2010 increased by 6.6% to 59.8 Mt (tables 1, 5) but, except for 2009, was still the lowest production since 1983. Clinker production actually increased signi fi cantly in nearly all months after March, but January through March showed a 13.3% decline overall. Apparent annual production capacity declined by about 4% to 109 Mt, re fl ecting kiln and (or) plant closures the previous year, but utilization of capacity increased modestly to about 55% from 49% in 2009. Utilization in 2010 was still well below the presumed “full practicable” capacity utilization rates of 85% or more experienced during years of high cement sales volumes. It should be noted that the utilization statistic is dependent on the reported downtime for routine maintenance. As in 2009, many plants reported much longer than normal downtimes for this purpose in 2010; where this was obvious, corrections were made in both years (after consultation with the plants) to remove the extra downtime (a result of slow sales) from the statistic. Yearend clinker stockpiles showed an overall decline of 7.2%. This apparent drawdown would appear to indicate production shortfalls relative to subsequent cement production, but the statistic is dif fi cult to fully evaluate because of regional variation in the clinker stock changes and because many kilns continued idle for much or all of the year. In terms of kiln technology, the count for wet plants in 2010 fell by four because of the closure in 2009 of wet plants; one each in Michigan, Missouri, and Pennsylvania; and the replacement of the wet kilns with a precalciner (dry) kiln in 2010 (hence shift to “Both” status for the year) at a plant in Arkansas. The dry plant count increased by two because of the permanent shutdown in 2009 of the wet kilns at former combination (“Both”) plants in Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

Nonfuel raw materials consumed to make clinker and cement are listed in table 6. Ratios among the raw materials and between them and the total cement and clinker produced in 2010 appear to be broadly similar to those in 2009; apparent changes or substitutions may re fl ect consumption at a relatively small number of plants. One apparently signi fi cant change is a 22% increase in the consumption of granulated blast furnace slag for cement; this is in accord with increased sales of blended cements that contain GGBFS, although the relative sales increase is even larger (table 15).

For fl y ash and bottom ash, the table 6 data in the past have been similar to those published by the American Coal Ash Association (ACAA) for sales during the year for use in making clinker and cement (combined). For 2010, however, the ACAA tonnage for fl y ash (1.856 Mt) was 26% lower than that in table 6, and the ACAA tonnage for bottom ash (0.861 Mt) was 18% higher (American Coal Ash Association, 2011). It is unclear if the differences represented an issue of actual sales (as reported by the ACAA) versus consumption, including from stockpiles (table 6), or problems with mischaracterization of the material in one or both surveys. The “Gypsum and anhydrite” data for 2010 in table 6 included 0.801 Mt of synthetic gypsum, but this may underrepresent actual use of the synthetic material because a split, if any, between natural and synthetic gypsum is not required by the USGS canvass. In recent years, the USGS data for synthetic gypsum have exceeded those reported by the ACAA, likely because the ACAA does not survey the cement plants’ own production of the synthetic material. In 2010, however, the ACAA reported 1.03 Mt of synthetic gypsum sales to the cement industry.

Data on fuel consumption by the cement industry are listed in table 7. Data shifts can re fl ect activities at just a few plants. In terms of overall mass ratios among fuels in total and relative to clinker production, signi fi cant declines in 2010 were especially evident for wet plants, re fl ecting the lower plant count. For dry plants, a decline in fuel oil consumption was likely because of escalating fuel oil prices and appears to have been more than offset by an increase in consumption of liquid waste fuels.

Although not shown in table 7, overall heat consumption (gross heat basis) in 2010 was about 4.1 billion joules (GJ) per metric ton of clinker, down slightly (2.6%) from the revised average for 2009. The reduction appears to re fl ect a combination of the closure of wet plants in 2009 and of wet kilns at two former combination plants (which were thus dry plants in 2010), and the addition of a dry kiln at a former wet plant. Heat consumption at the remaining operational wet plants averaged 6.7 GJ per ton of clinker, very slightly (probably of no statistical signi fi cance) higher than the revised average for 2009, and dry kilns averaged 4.0 GJ per ton of clinker, very slightly lower. It remained unclear whether or not the industry was experiencing any heat (ef fi ciency) penalties for the common practice in 2009 and 2010 of operating kilns on an intermittent basis and with longer overall downtimes than customary in busy years. For the industry overall, coal continued to supply the largest share of total heat consumed (62%, up by about 3%), followed by petroleum coke (about 19%, down by nearly 10%), and waste fuels (14%, up by 8%).

Average unit electricity consumption was substantially unchanged in 2010 for the industry overall and for dry plants, but increased at the remaining wet plants (table 8). As with heat consumption, many plants operated on an intermittent basis in 2009 and 2010, and this has made it dif fi cult to evaluate changes related to closures of older facilities and to technology upgrades.16.4 [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2010 

### The only signi fi cant ownership change in 2010 within the U.S. cement industry was the purchase in May of Continental Cement Co. by Summit Materials, LLC (2010). Continental wasan independent company that operated a 1.0-million-metricton-per-year precalciner kiln plant at Hannibal, MO. Toward yearend, Drake Cement LLC completed construction of its new 1,800-metric-ton-per-day (t/d) integrated plant at Drake, AZ. Production of clinker and cement was expected to commence in early 2011. Drake Cement was a subsidiary of Peruvian company Cementos Lima SA.

The pace of plant closures and long-term idlings slowed in 2010 by comparison to 2008 and 2009. In March 2010, CEMEX closed the Wampum, PA, plant, which had been the oldest continuously operating cement plant in the country. In December, Buzzi Unicem announced that the “inde fi nite idle” status of its Oglesby, IL, plant, which had been idle since November 2008, would now be considered permanent. The company expected to service the Illinois market from its plant at Selma, MO. At the end of October, Lafarge permanently closed the kilns at its Seattle, WA, plant but announced that the facility would retain its grinding facilities, primarily to produce GGBFS from imported granules. In July, TXI announced that the wet kilns at its Midlothian, TX, plant would be closed; they had been on inde fi nite idle status since October 2008. The facility continued to operate its precalciner (dry) kiln. In addition to these plant closures, and as in 2009, many operating multikiln plants had one or more kilns idle for all or extended portions of 2010.

Although several plant upgrade or expansion projects remained on hold pending a recovery in cement sales, a few projects were completed in 2010. In March, Ash Grove fi red its new precalciner kiln at its Foreman, AR, plant; the new kiln had an annual capacity of about 4,200 t/d and replaced the facility’s three wet kilns (total capacity of 2,500 t/d ) that shut down in February. The new kiln line also had new milling facilities. At its Newberry, FL, plant, Florida Rock Industries, Inc. (a subsidiary of Vulcan Materials Co.) brought a second precalciner kiln online in June. The new kiln had an annual capacity of about 0.74 Mt of clinker and was essentially identical to the existing kiln at the facility. Essroc brought a

new fi nish mill online at its Martinsburg, WV, plant early in 2010; this followed the startup of the plant’s precalciner kiln in November 2009. Consumption

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

In the fi rst 2 months of the year, the U.S. cement market continued a steep decline that began in early to mid-2006; this

re fl ected continued stagnation in most construction sectors, continued tight credit, and ongoing shortfalls in State property tax revenues. Beginning in March, however, sales of portland cement began to improve, albeit erratically and relative to the weak levels seen in 2009. Thus, although sales for 2010 overall were down by 0.5% (table 9), those for March through December were up by 3.1%. Individual State changes in sales were mixed; of the three traditionally largest consuming States (California, Florida, and Texas), only Texas showed an increase in 2010. The single largest gain in sales volumes was in Louisiana. Per-capita consumption of portland cement was 222 kg in 2010, signi fi cantly unchanged from that of 2009, and was the lowest level since 1947. By comparison, during the record consumption year of 2005, per capita consumption was 413 kg. After declining by 31% in 2009, masonry cement consumption decreased by a further 9% in 2010 to just 1.9 Mt, the lowest level since 1946.

As noted earlier, the sales data in this report are missing some imported material. An estimate of cement sales volumes by importers that do not report to the USGS can be made by comparing U.S. Census Bureau trade data (tables 17 and 21) with the USGS data for import origins of sales (table 9). The U.S. Census Bureau cement imports (including into Puerto Rico) were about 0.35 Mt higher in 2010 than the foreign origin tonnages reported to the USGS and 0.49 Mt higher than those of 2009. These differences, however, appear to underestimate the missing sales of imported cement, based on known gaps in the USGS sales data relating to the imports (table 18) from the Republic of Korea into the Philadelphia, PA, customs district and of much of the material from Colombia into the Houston, TX, Savannah, GA, and Wilmington, NC, districts. Adjusting for these, and for stockpile changes at importers, it is estimated that the annual sales tables are missing at least about 0.4 Mt of sales in 2010 and about 0.6 Mt in 2009.

Although table 9 gives the better indication of regional consumption tonnages, regional breakouts of price data (as mill net values) are listed in tables 11 and 12. Unit prices fell only modestly in 2009 despite the very large decrease in sales volumes, but in 2010, prices for portland cement fell signi fi cantly almost everywhere in the country. Price changes commonly lag changes in sales volumes because of the common existence of long-term pricing contracts, and prices in 2010 appeared to have “caught up” to the oversupply of cement on the market. Price shifts for masonry cement (table 13) are dif fi cult to evaluate because of the high but variable percentage of sales that are in bag or package form rather than the much cheaper bulk form; the split between bag and bulk sales is not reported to the USGS.

Table 10 lists sales of portland cement by mode of transportation. The major change evident was that a higher percentage of sales in 2010 were directly at or from the cement plants (as opposed to from terminals) than was the case in 2009.

Cement consumption levels within a given category of construction broadly re fl ect levels of construction spending, although signi fi cant time lags may exist between the onset or cutoff of spending and changes in the consumption of cement. In terms of 1996 constant dollars, overall construction spending in 2010 fell by nearly 9% to $503 billion (Portland Cement Association, 2012). Of this total, public sector construction was the largest share, at $182 billion, down by 2%, but included spending for road construction that increased by nearly 3%. Residential construction,CEMENT—2010 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 16.5 

### the second largest sector, was essentially stagnant at about $164 billion; within this sector, single-family construction spending increased by nearly 9%, and multifamily construction spending decreased by nearly 50%. Nonresidential construction spending decreased by nearly 29% to about $94 billion.

A breakout of 2010 portland cement sales by customer type is provided in table 14. Sales to ready-mixed concrete producers accounted for 69% of total shipments, but the true percentage to this type of customer was larger because some of the sales were reported under other customer categories, such as road paving contractors, that also make use of ready-mixed concrete. As listed, the sales to ready-mixed customers fell by 3.7%, but if combined with airport and road paving contractors (to better approximate true sales into the ready-mixed sector), the decline was just 1.9%. Within the contractor sales category, overall sales for road paving increased by nearly 28%, considerably higher than the overall spending increase noted above, and suggestive of a possible gain in concrete’s market share in that subsector. Sales to brick and block makers declined by nearly 11%, and sales to precast and prestressed slab makers decreased by about 4%. Sales to oil (and gas) well drilling companies were up by 55%, in line with increased oil and gas prices during the year, and presumably would have been higher if there had not been a 6-month moratorium on offshore drilling in 2010.

Sales of various types included as portland cement by the USGS are broken out in table 15. As in past years, sales were dominated by Types I and II cements and sulfate-resistant varieties of cement (Type V and Type II/V hybrids reported as Type V); these also included equivalent cements sold under the speci fi cations of ASTM C–1157. Most of the decline in sales in 2010 was in the Types I and II grouping. Oil-well cement sales were up, as noted above. White cement sales increased by about 11%. Unlike the case in recent years, the white cement sales tonnage in 2010 was signi fi cantly higher than the imports of white cement (table 20). The relationship of white cement sales and imports has always been complicated by the use of some white cement in masonry cement (sales of which are not included in table 15), in colored cements that may have been reported with the gray varieties, and by the fact that some imported white cement is blended with domestically produced white cement. Because of the relatively low overall tonnages involved, sales versus imports of white cement may be particularly sensitive to changes in stockpile tonnages.

Blended cement sales were up by nearly 21%, especially of varieties containing GGBFS. As in 2009, the overall tonnage of blended cement sales in 2010 was signi fi cantly lower than the nearly 2.0 Mt listed in the monthly sales data for the year. It remains uncertain why this difference exists, but it most likely relates to continued inconsistencies in characterizing cement sold under the general performance standard ASTM C–1157, which at one time applied only to blended cements but which now applies to hydraulic cements in general. Foreign Trade

Trade data supplied by the U.S. Census Bureau are listed in tables 16–21. Exports (table 16) increased by about one-third in 2010 to nearly 1.2 Mt. Although this was the highest level in more than 60 years, exports remained a very small part of total sales by the U.S. industry and continued to be small compared to cement imports. Canada was the main destination for U.S. exports, accounting for 69% of the total.

Total imports of cement and clinker in 2010 fell slightly to 6.6 Mt (tables 1, 17), continuing, but at a much slower rate, a trend of decline since the record importation year of 2006 (35.6 Mt). As usual, most of the imports were of gray portland cement, and most of the decline in imports was of material from Colombia and Turkey. Imports from most other countries increased (table 19). As in 2009, Canada remained by far the leading source of cement imports. Imports from Asian countries, although growing slightly in 2010, had yet to even remotely recover their dominance of former years (such as 54% of total imports in 2006).

Of fi cial imports of white cement are listed in table 20. In many past years, and based on unexpectedly low unit values, the data appeared to have included some gray cement or clinker; the apparent errors were because of the use of the wrong tariff code by importers. For 2010, the average unit value for imports from China indicates the possible inclusion of some tonnage of gray cement. For 2009, the value data for the Republic of Korea suggest that most of the material was gray cement.

Imports of clinker increased by 10% to 0.61 Mt (table 21), but the data are incomplete with regard to overland imports from Canada; the tonnages listed are insuf fi cient to have fully supplied the three grinding plants in Michigan and Washington. The annual de fi cit is estimated to be about 0.2 Mt in both 2009 and 2010. The unreported Canadian clinker appears mostly to have come in by truck, at a value of less than $2,000 (customs value) per truckload; such shipments are classi fi ed as “informal entries” and data on them are not routinely transmitted by the U.S. Customs Service to the U.S. Census Bureau for recordation into the of fi cial trade data (reproduced in tables 17–21). This problem presumably does not exist for imports by rail or by ship because these shipments are larger.

For cement and clinker combined, the 10 busiest customs districts of entry in 2010 were, in descending order of tonnage, Detroit, MI; Seattle, WA; Houston-Galveston, TX; Buffalo, NY; Cleveland, OH; Columbia-Snake, ID, OR, and WA; Honolulu, HI; El Paso, TX; New York, NY; and San Francisco, CA (table 18). These leading districts accounted for about 72% of the total imports for the year.

World Review

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

World cement output in 2010 was an estimated 3.31 Gt, up by about 9%. Production was from more than 150 countries. China was again the world’s leading producer by far, with an output of 1.88 Gt or nearly 57% of the world total.

The remaining top 20 producers in 2010 were, in descending order of tonnage, India, the United States, Turkey, Brazil, Japan, Russia, Iran, Vietnam, Egypt, the Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, Italy, Mexico, Pakistan, Germany,16.6 [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2010 

### Spain, Indonesia, and Algeria. Cumulatively, the top 5 countries accounted for 69% of total world output; the top 10 countries, about 76%; and the top 20 countries, about 86%.

Regionally, Asia and the Paci fi c contributed nearly 73% of world production, including 9 of the 20 leading producing countries, and had the highest growth rate of all regions; the region had accounted for 58% of world output in 2000 and 65% in 2005. Because of this rapid growth in Asia (particularly in China), most other regions, although increasing output tonnage, have had generally diminishing shares of total world output. For example, North America (including Mexico) contributed 8% of world output in 2000 and 6.5% in 2005 but only 3.5% in 2010. Central and South America (including the Caribbean) accounted for about 5% of world production in 2000 but less than 4% in 2010. Western Europe contributed 12% of world output in 2000 but only 9% in 2005 and just 5% in 2010. Eastern Europe produced nearly 2% of world output in 2000 but just 1.4% in 2010. Other regions have held fairly constant world shares during the past decade, at about 4% for Africa, nearly 7% for the Middle East, and about 3% for the Commonwealth of Independent States.

Outlook

The general increase in cement sales that began in March 2010 was expected to continue in 2011, with sales for 2011 anticipated to be about 3% higher for the year and with further modest increases expected for the next few years thereafter. High rates of growth were not expected until the housing market and tax revenues to States recovered signi fi cantly. Absent improvement to the latter, State contributions to public sector construction projects would likely continue to be hampered.

Given the signi fi cant underutilization of production capacity in 2010, domestic production normally would be favored instead of imports to meet all or most increases in short-term cement demand. However, given that much of the underutilized capacity was in the form of year- or multiyear-long idlings of extra kilns (or even of entire plants), and because many of the idle kilns were old or of energy-inef fi cient technology, many of the older facilities may be unable to meet or justify upgrades to meet NESHAP emissions limits. Because many plants have experienced signi fi cant and extended layoffs of personnel, it was unclear how quickly domestic production could recover should demand increase faster than expected. Thus, while imports were not expected to increase in 2011, these production-related issues offered the possibility of imports gaining market share in the medium term. In the long-term, should the cement market recover to high (such as 2005) consumption levels, and if NESHAP or other new regulations lead to a large number of plant closures, it is unclear if current importation capacity will be adequate to compensate for the production shortfalls.

References Cited
American Coal Ash Association, 2011, 2010 coal combustion product (CCP)

production and use survey report: Aurora, CO, American Coal Ash Association fact sheet, 1 p. (Accessed January 25, 2012, at http://acaa.af fi niscape.com/ associations/8003/ fi les/2010_CCP_Survey_FINAL_102011.pdf.) Goss, D.C., 2010, Usage declines may signal beginning of troubling trend: Ash

at Work, issue 2, p. 14–17. Hanle, Lisa, Maldonado, Pedro, Onuma, Eiichi, Tichy, Milos, and van Oss, H.G., 2006, Mineral industry emissions, chap. 2 in Eggleston, Simon, Buenda, Leandro, Miwa, Kyoko, Ngara, Todd, and Tanabe, Kiyoto, eds., Industrial processes and product use: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, v. 3, CD-ROM. Portland Cement Association, 2012, Construction put in place: Monitor, v. 22,

no. 3, March, p. 10. Summit Materials LLC, 2010, Summit Materials announces a majority investment

in Continental Cement: Washington, DC, Summit Materials LLC press release, May 27. (Accessed January 25, 2012, at http://www.summit-materials.com/news/summit-materials-announces-a-majority-investment-in-continentalcement.html.) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2009a, 40 CFR Parts 60 and 63—

National emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants from the portland cement industry (Proposed rule): Federal Register, May 6, v. 74, no. 86, p. 21136–21192. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2009b, 40 CFR Part 98—Mandatory

greenhouse gas reporting (Final rule): Federal Register, October 30, v. 74, no. 209, p. 56374–56519. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2010a, 40 CFR Parts 241—

Identi fi cation of non-hazardous secondary materials that are solid waste (Proposed rule): Federal Register, June 4, v. 75, no. 107, p. 31833–31893. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2010b, 40 CFR Parts 257, 261, 264,

265, 268, 271 and 302—Hazardous and solid waste management system; Identi fi cation and listing of special wastes; Disposal of coal combustion residuals from electric utilities (Proposed rule): Federal Register, June 21, v. 75, no. 118, p. 35128–35264. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2010c, 40 CFR Parts 60 and 63—

National emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants from the portland cement manufacturing industry and standards of performance for portland cement plants (Final rule): Federal Register, September 9, v. 75, no. 174, p. 54970–55066. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2012, Summary 2010 GHG data: U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency. (Accessed April 27, 2012, via http:// www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgdata/2010data.html.) van Oss, H.G., 2005, Background facts and issues concerning cement and

cement data: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2005–1152, 88 p. (Accessed January 2, 2012, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1152/.)


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

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

Mines Bulletin 675, 1985. Cement Americas, bimonthly. Concrete Products, monthly. European Cement Association, The. Global Cement Magazine, monthly. International Cement Review, monthly. North American Cement Directory, Cement Americas, annual. Portland Cement Association: Monitor, The, monthly. North American Cement Industry Annual Yearbook. U.S. and Canadian Portland Cement Industry, Plant

Information Summary, annual. Rock Products, monthly. Slag Cement Association, annual survey. World Cement, monthly.CEMENT—2010 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 16.7 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Production:

Cement 3 98,167 95,464 86,310 63,907 r 66,421 Clinker 88,555 86,130 78,382 56,116 59,802 Shipments from mills and terminals: 3, 4, 5

Quantity 127,000 114,000 96,700 71,000 r 70,300 Value 6 thousand dollars 12,900,000 11,900,000 9,990,000 7,020,000 6,470,000 Average value 6 dollars per metric ton 101.50 104.00 103.50 99.00 92.00 Stocks, yearend:

Cement 9,380 8,890 8,360 6,080 6,180 Clinker 5,370 6,550 7,070 5,130 4,760 Exports 723 7 886 7 823 884 1,178 Imports: 8

Cement 32,141 21,496 10,744 6,211 6,013 Clinker 3,425 972 621 556 613

Total 9 35,566 22,468 11,365 6,767 6,626 Consumption, apparent 10 127,660 116,550 96,760 71,510 r 71,160 World production e, 11 2,620,000 r 2,810,000 2,850,000 3,030,000 r 3,310,000

5 Shipments to final domestic customers. Data are from an annual survey of plants and terminals and may differ from the totals in table 9, which are 4 Includes imported cement. 2 Excludes Puerto Rico.
3 Includes cement made from imported clinker. Includes a double-counted component (less than 0.3% per year) of portland cement su bsequently

change in yearend cement stocks.

11 Total hydraulic cement. May include clinker exports for some countries. 6 Value free on board mill or independently reporting terminal.

7 Official export data have been corrected to remove an apparent excess of aluminous cement from Laredo, TX, of 943,939 metric to ns in 2006 and 653,255 metric tons in 2007.

8 All forms of hydraulic cement or clinker.

9 Data may not add to totals shown because of independent rounding.
10 Production (including that from imported clinker) of cement plus imports of hydraulic cement minus exports of hydraulic cement minus the TABLE 1 SALIENT CEMENT STATISTICS FOR THE UNITED STATES 1, 2

based on consolidated monthly surveys from companies. (Thousand metric tons unless otherwise specified)

e Estimated. r Revised.

1 Unless otherwise indicated, data are for portland (including blended) and masonry cements only. Even where presented unrounded, data are thought to be accurate to no more than three significant digits.

converted by the cement plants to masonry cement; because of the involvement of stockpiles, the precise amount converted from a ctual production cannot be determined.16.8 [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2010 State subdivision Defining counties California, northern Alpine, Fresno, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Monterey, Tulare, Tuolumne, and all counties farther north. California, southern Inyo, Kern, Mono, San Luis Obispo, and all counties farther south. Illinois, metropolitan Chicago Cook, DuPage, Kane, Kendall, Lake, McHenry, and Will Counties in Illinois. Illinois, excluding Chicago All counties other than those in metropolitan Chicago. New York, eastern Delaware, Franklin, Hamilton, Herkimer, Otsego, and all counties farther east and south, except those within Metropolitan New York. New York, western Broome, Chenango, Lewis, Madison, Oneida, St. Lawrence, and all counties farther west. New York, metropolitan New York City (Bronx, Kings, New York, Queens, and Richmond), Nassau, Rockland, Suffolk, and Westchester. Pennsylvania, eastern Adams, Cumberland, Juniata, Lycoming, Mifflin, Perry, Tioga, Union, and all counties farther east. Pennsylvania, western Centre, Clinton, Franklin, Huntingdon, Potter, and all counties farther west. Texas, northern Angelina, Bell, Concho, Crane, Culberson, El Paso, Falls, Houston, Hudspeth, Irion, Lampasas, Leon, Limestone, McCulloch, Reagan, Reeves, Sabine, San Augustine, San Saba, Tom Green, Trinity, Upton, Ward, and all counties farther north. Texas, southern Brazos, Burnet, Crockett, Jasper, Jeff Davis, Llano, Madison, Mason, Menard, Milam, Newton, Pecos, Polk, Robertson, San Jacinto, Schleicher, Tyler, Walker, Williamson, and all counties farther south. TABLE 2 COUNTY BASIS OF SUBDIVISION OF STATES IN CEMENT TABLESCEMENT—2010 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 16.9Number Grinding Percentage Yearend Number Grinding Percentage YearendDistrict2of plants Productioncapacity3utilized4stocks5of plants Productioncapacity3utilized4stocks5Maine and New York 5 2,118 4,341 49 21965 2,122 4,236 50 198Pennsylvania, eastern 7 3,042r5,420657 247 7 3,38276,7906, 7506, 73467Pennsylvania, western 3 678 1,805 38 103 2 W7W7W7W7Illinois 3 1,487 3,390 44 237 3 1,620 2,755 59 235Indiana 4 2,685 3,740672 188 4 2,473 3,745 66 219Michigan 5 3,548 6,983 51 163 4 3,482 5,530 63 230Ohio 2 550 1,166 47 25 2 627 1,166 54 56Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota 5 2,991 5,840651 266 5 2,677 5,8406466257Kansas 3 1,669 2,940657 166 3 1,824 2,937 62 240Missouri 6 4,418 13,035 34 622 5 6,469 10,817 60 661Florida87 3,145 7,610641 260 7 3,354 9,3806366306Georgia, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia 6 3,859 7,180654 334 6 4,305 7,906 54 418South Carolina 3 1,868 5,085 37 77 3 2,048 5,085 40 114Alabama 5 3,416 7,292 47 23165 3,286 7,292 45 266Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee 4 1,958 3,702 53 147 4 2,193 3,702 59 268Arkansas and Oklahoma 4 2,067 3,127 66 182 4 2,012 4,078 49 165Texas, northern 6 3,833 7,580651 609 6 3,867 7,765 50 176Texas, southern 6 4,519 6,505 69 22666 5,000 6,185 81 214Arizona and New Mexico 3 1,464 3,116 47 91 3 1,244 3,116 40 98Colorado and Wyoming 4 2,165 4,517 48 149 4 2,333 4,517 52 114Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah 6 2,050 3,728 55 156 6 2,055 3,725 55 146Alaska and Hawaii -- -- -- -- 55 -- -- -- -- 66California 11 7,153 13,600653 417610 6,945 12,851 54 4226Oregon and Washington 4 1,254 2,435 51 27564 1,200 2,435 49 269Importers9-- -- -- -- 1826-- -- -- -- 2696Total10112 61,939r, 11124,000650 5,6206108 64,52011122,000653 5,7506Puerto Rico 2 936 1,780 53 4762 755 1,780 42 49Grand total10114 62,875r, 11126,000650 5,6706110 65,27511124,000653 5,80066Data contain estimates for nonrespondents or incompletely reporting facilities.7For 2010, data for Western Pennsylvania are included with those for Eastern Pennsylvania.1Even where presented unrounded, data are thought to be accurate to no more than three significant digits. Includes data for white cement. Includes cement made from imported clinker.2District assignation is the location of the reporting facilities. Specific districts include importers for which district assignations were possible.3Grinding capacity is based on fineness needed to produce a plant’s normal output mix, including masonry cement, and allowing for downtime for routine maintenance.4Calculated relative to portland cement output; utilization would be higher if calculated to include output of masonry cement.5Includes imported cement. Includes stocks at mills, terminals, and in transit.rRevised. W Withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data; included in “Total.” -- Zero.TABLE 3PORTLAND AND BLENDED CEMENT PRODUCTION, CAPACITY, AND STOCKS IN THE UNITED STATES, BY DISTRICT1(Thousand metric tons unless otherwise specified)2009201016.10 [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2010of the involvement of stockpiles, but is less than 0.5% of the totals listed.8Production and capacity data exclude a plant that produced only masonry cement.9Data include only those importers or terminals for which district assignations were not possible.10Data may not add to totals shown because of independent rounding.11The production totals include a small amount of portland cement subsequently consumed to make masonry cement; the amount thus double-counted cannot be determined precisely becauseTABLE 3—ContinuedPORTLAND AND BLENDED CEMENT PRODUCTION, CAPACITY, AND STOCKS IN THE UNITED STATES, BY DISTRICT1CEMENT—2010 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 16.11 Number Number of active Yearend of active Yearend District 2 plants Production 3 stocks 4 plants Production 3 stocks 4
Maine and New York 4 41 12 4 40 14 Pennsylvania 9 176 46 8 147 41 Indiana and Ohio 6 244 52 6 260 59 Michigan 4 80 28 3 83 24 Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota 2 W W 1 WW Kansas 2 W W 2 WW Missouri 1 W W 1 WW Florida 6 123 38 6 198 42 Georgia, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia 6 250 42 6 251 42 South Carolina 3 174 16 3 152 17 Alabama 4 208 61 4 191 47 Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee 3 W W 3 WW Arkansas and Oklahoma 3 97 21 4 92 17 Texas 8 202 22 8 199 22 Arizona and New Mexico 3 W W 3 WW Colorado and Wyoming 2 W W 2 WW Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah -- W W 1 WW California 7 236 45 5 6 178 32 5 Importers 6 -- -- 3 5

-- -- 9 5

Total 7 73 1,968 456 5 71 1,901 427 5 TABLE 4

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

1 Includes masonry, portland-lime, plastic, and stucco cements. Even where presented unrounded, data are thought to be accurate t o no more than three significant digits.

2 District assignation is the location of the reporting facilities. Specific districts include importers for which district assig nations were possible.
3 Includes cement produced from imported clinker. MASONRY CEMENT PRODUCTION AND STOCKS IN THE UNITED STATES, BY DISTRICT 1

(Thousand metric tons unless otherwise specified)

2009 2010

4 Includes imported cement.
5 Data contain estimates for nonrespondents or incompletely reporting facilities.

6 Data include only those importers or terminals for which district assignations were not possible.

7 Data may not add totals shown because of independent rounding.16.12 [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2010Daily Average Apparent annual Yearendcapacity4, 5days ofcapacity4, 7Production Percentage stocksNumber (thousand routine (thousand (thousand of capacity (thousandDistrict Wet DryBoth3Totalof kilns4metric tons)maintenance6metric tons) metric tons) utilized metric tons)Maine and New York 2 2 -- 4 5 11.3 32.8 3,748 1,971 52.6 115Pennsylvania 2 6 -- 8 14 19.2 18.986,50083,198 49.28244Illinois -- 3 -- 3 6 7.7 10.9 2,677 1,474 55.0 122Indiana 1 39-- 4 8 10.2 21.183,47082,326 67.18108Michigan -- 2 -- 2 6 11.2 32.3 3,679 2,703 73.5 159Ohio 1 1 -- 2 3 3.4 9.7 1,202 680 56.6 89Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota -- 4 1 5 9 14.1 15.784,87082,351 48.38131Kansas 1 2 -- 3 5 8.5 21.6 2,956 1,937 65.5 90Missouri -- 5 -- 5 5 28.5 30.089,62085,909 62.18340Florida -- 7 -- 7 10 25.9815.389,09083,303 36.38394Georgia, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia -- 5 -- 5 5 19.5 29.686,50084,090 63.08264South Carolina -- 3 -- 3 3 12.3 26.8 4,180 1,906 45.6 265Alabama -- 5 -- 5 5 16.9 21.085,79083,185 55.08223Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee 1 3 -- 4 4 11.0 15.583,81082,193 57.68134Arkansas and Oklahoma 1 2 1 4 11 12.5 24.9 4,125 1,803 43.7 105Texas, northern 2 410(10) 6 12 19.0 23.2 6,552 3,374 51.5 383Texas, southern -- 5 -- 5 6 16.2 19.4 5,606 4,536 80.9 222Arizona and New Mexico -- 3 -- 3 7 8.6 3.6 3,091 1,205 39.0 174Colorado and Wyoming -- 4 -- 4 5 11.5 27.5 3,829 2,162 56.5 252Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah 3 3 -- 6 8 8.5 22.982,88081,770 61.68174California -- 9 -- 9 11 37.9817.9 12,90086,634 51.2 734Oregon and Washington 1 2 -- 3 3 6.0 30.0 2,033 1,091 53.6 47Total1115 83 2 100 151 321.0820.88109,000859,802 54.884,760Puerto Rico -- 2 -- 2 2 5.3 42.581,7308642 37.1864Grand total1115 85 2 102 153 326.0821.08111,000860,444 54.684,8307Sum of apparent annual capacities for all kilns. For each kiln, the statistic is calculated as 365 days minus days reported forroutine maintenance and then multiplied by the unrounded daily capacity.11Data may not add to totals shown because of independent rounding.3Plants that can operate both wet and dry kilns, whether or not both types were active during the year.4Includes kilns active for at least 1 day during the year. For kilns idle all year, excludes those that cannot be restarted, fully permitted, in less than 6 months.5Sum of reported kiln capacities for all plants in a district.8Data contain estimates for nonrespondents and incompletely reporting facilities and have been rounded to no more than three significant digits.TABLE 5CLINKER CAPACITY AND PRODUCTION IN THE UNITED STATES IN 2010, BY DISTRICT1Number of active plants2-- Zero.Process used6Total days of routine maintenance (summed for all kilns) divided by the number of kilns.2Includes white cement plants. Includes all plants that produced clinker for at least 1 day during the year.9Includes one semiwet kiln.10Includes as a dry operation one plant, formerly operating both wet and dry kilns, whose wet kilns were idle all year (2009) andwhich, in 2010, were declared permanently closed.1Even where presented unrounded, data are thought to be accurate to no more than three significant digits.CEMENT—2010 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 16.13 

### Materials Clinker Cement 3 

### Clinker Cement 3


### Calcareous:

Limestone (aragonite, chalk, coral, marble) 73,600 1,510 78,500 1,550 Cement rock (includes marl) 6,560 -- 7,500 30 Cement kiln dust (CKD) 4 

### 288 156 256 141 Lime 4 

### 17 5 20 17 Other 62 -- 47 13 Aluminous:

Clay 2,500 3 2,830

-- Shale and schist 2,540 -- 2,370 13 Other 5 

### 438 -- 478

-- Ferrous:

Iron ore 481 -- 501

-- Mill scale 536 -- 522

-- Other 6 

### 40 -- 19

-- Siliceous:

Sand, calcium silicates 2,550 -- 2,830

-- Sandstone, quartzite, soils, nonpozzolanic rocks 464 -- 506

-- Fly ash 2,290 74 2,430 85 Other ash, including bottom ash 706 -- 727

-- Granulated blast furnace slag 7 

### 44 192 70 235 Other blast furnace slag 99 -- 30

-- Steel slag 169 -- 238

-- Other slag 38 -- 165 2 Natural rock pozzolans 8 

### -- 11 -- 20 Other pozzolans 9 

### 45 3 9 1 Other:

Gypsum and anhydrite ( 10 

### ) 3,367 ( 10 

### ) 3,550 Other 11 

### 79 57 62 61 Total 12 

### 93,600 5,380 100,000 5,720 Clinker, imported, raw materials equivalent 13 

### -- 1,250 -- 1,190

Grand total 12 

### 93,600 6,630 100,000 6,910 RAW MATERIALS USED TO PRODUCE CLINKER AND CEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 1, 2 

### TABLE 6

(Thousand metric tons)

3 

### Includes portland, blended, and masonry cements. 2 

### Data have been rounded to three significant digits to reflect inherent reporting accuracy and the incorporation of estimates fo r some facilities.

4 

### Data are probably underreported.
5 

### Includes alumina, aluminum dross, bauxite, spent catalysts, and other aluminous materials.

6 

### Includes iron sludges, pyrite, and other ferrous materials.

7 

### Includes both ground (GGBFS) and unground material. 2010

-- Zero. 2009

1 

### Excludes Puerto Rico.

13 

### Converted as 1.7 times the weight of foreign clinker consumed. 8 

### Includes pozzolana and burned clays or shales (except where directly reported as clay or shale).

9 

### Includes diatomite, silica fume, other microcrystalline silica, and other pozzolans, even if not used as such.
10 

### Included with Calcareous: Other.

11 

### Includes fluorspar and all other materials not listed earlier.

12 

### Data may not add to totals shown because of independent rounding.16.14 [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2010QuantityCoal4PetcokeOil5Naturalgas6Tires Solid LiquidNumber (thousand Percentage (thousand (thousand (thousand (thousand (thousand (thousand (thousandKiln process of plants metric tons) of total metric tons) metric tons) liters) cubic meters) metric tons) metric tons) liters)2009:Wet 19 4,866 8.7 569 157 7,310 96,200 50 16 256,000Dry781 50,112 89.3 4,690 1,300 26,500 247,000 263 307 493,000Both83 1,138 2.0 186 33 1,810 1,190 -- -- 34,600Total9103 56,116 100.0 5,450 1,490 35,600 344,000 313 324 784,0002010:Wet 15 3,918 6.6 498 148 6,480 27,200 52 59 229,000Dry783 54,600 91.3 5,110 1,320 24,100 252,000 270 351 639,000Both82 1,285 2.1 194 -- -- 7,260 -- -- 41,300Total9100 59,802 100.0 5,810 1,470 30,500 287,000 322 411 909,000TABLE 7CLINKER PRODUCED AND FUEL CONSUMED BY THE U.S. CEMENT INDUSTRY, BY KILN PROCESS1Conventional fuels3Clinkerproduction2Waste fuels32Clinkerproduction data are all reported. Although unrounded, data are thought to be accurate to no more than three significant digits.1Excludes Puerto Rico.-- Zero.during the year. Excludes one plant as noted in footnote 7.9Data maynot add to totals shown because of independent rounding.6Includes landfillgas andpropane.3All fuel data have been rounded to no more than three significant digits.4All reported to be bituminous.5Distilliate and residual fuel oils. Excludes used oils that were reported under liquid wastes.7Includes one semiwetplant. Also includes oneplant that operated a drykiln, but also had wet kilns which, although technicallyidle allyear, were officiallyclosed in 2010.8Plants that can operate both wet and drykilns, whether or not both types were active duringtheyear. Includesplants that converted from wet to drytechnologyCEMENT—2010 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 16.15AverageCement consumptionQuantity Quantity Quantityproduced4(kilowatthoursNumber (million Number (million Number (million Percentage (thousand per ton ofPlant process of plants kilowatthours) of plants kilowatthours) of plants kilowatthours) of total metric tons) cement produced)2009:Integrated plants:Wet -- -- 19 815 19 815 8.8 5,804 140Dry52 223 8367,980 8368,200 88.6 55,601 148Both7-- -- 3 222 3 222 2.4 1,334 166Total or average32 223 10569,020 10569,250 100.0 62,738 147Grinding plants8-- -- 6 103 5r103 -- 1,047 99Exclusions9-- -- 3 XX 3 XX -- 143 XX2010:Integrated plants:Wet -- -- 15 621 15 621 6.5 4,277 145Dry53 226 8568,470 8568,700 91.3 59,654 146Both7-- -- 2 205 2 205 2.2 1,377 149Total or average33 226 10269,300 10269,520 100.0 65,309 146Grinding plants8-- -- 4 96 4 96 -- 965 100Exclusions9-- -- 3 XX 3 XX -- 147 XX9Plants at which production of portland cement was by simply regrinding of one type into another, or which reported production only of masonry cement.5Includes one plant that operated a dry kiln but that had wet kilns which, although technically idle all year, were officially closed early in 2010.6Includes two grinding plants whose data were included with the integrated plants.as noted in footnote 5.reported a substantial component of grinding of excess granulated blast furnace slag.7Plants that can operate both wet and dry kilns, whether or not both types were active during the year. Includes plants that converted from wet to dry technology during the year. Excludes one plant8Plants that did not produce clinker but ground clinker from outside sources. Excludes plants that only made masonry cement or just reground one type of portland cement into another, or which also1Excludes Puerto Rico.2Electricity data are rounded to no more than three significant digits because they contain estimates.3Data may not add to totals shown because of independent rounding.4Portland and masonry cement. Data are all reported and are unrounded.rRevised. XX Not applicable. -- Zero.TABLE 8ELECTRICITY CONSUMED BY U.S. CEMENT PLANTS, BY KILN PROCESS1Electricity consumed2GeneratedTotal3Purchased16.16 [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2010 Destination and origin 2009 2010 2009 2010 Destination:

Alabama 1,140 1,009 85 77 Alaska 3 146 137 -- -- Arizona 1,727 1,477 26 22 Arkansas 732 757 40 38 California, northern 2,133 2,081 45 35 California, southern 4,395 4,137 170 145 Colorado 1,403 1,467 7 6 Connecticut 3 478 469 11 11
Delaware 3 159 172 5 4
District of Columbia 3 129 109 ( 4 ) (4) Florida 3,946 3,486 231 211 Georgia 1,887 1,685 131 116 Hawaii 3 306 262 2 3 Idaho 367 387 ( 4 ) ( 4 ) Illinois, excluding Chicago 1,397 1,413 10 10 Illinois, metropolitan Chicago 3 1,181 1,020 19 14 Indiana 1,454 1,482 39 34 Iowa 1,448 1,431 1 1 Kansas 1,133 1,172 7 5 Kentucky 870 852 49 45 Louisiana 3 2,135 2,742 49 48 Maine 185 185 2 2 Maryland 902 888 42 42 Massachusetts 3 702 679 11 10 Michigan 1,384 1,554 42 40 Minnesota 3 1,135 1,200 12 12 Mississippi 805 774 40 39 Missouri 1,728 1,563 19 17 Montana 256 259 1 ( 4 ) Nebraska 1,018 988 2 1 Nevada 1,008 897 12 6 New Hampshire 3 198 185 7 7 New Jersey 3 1,152 1,123 43 40 New Mexico 534 604 7 4 New York, eastern 476 456 10 9 New York, western 3 652 657 16 14 New York, metropolitan 3 1,304 1,189 59 50
North Carolina 3 1,612 1,581 135 127
North Dakota 3 375 408 1 1 Ohio 2,232 2,352 78 71 Oklahoma 1,338 1,432 39 39 Oregon 663 609 ( 4 ) ( 4 ) Pennsylvania, eastern 1,270 1,436 37 37 Pennsylvania, western 913 979 33 32 Rhode Island 3 106 93 1 1 South Carolina 822 931 70 61 South Dakota 450 447 1 ( 4 ) Tennessee 1,223 1,230 108 103 Texas, northern 4,255 4,713 79 73 Texas, southern 5,344 5,392 157 153 Utah 1,058 1,023 ( 4 ) ( 4 ) See footnotes at end of table. TABLE 9 CEMENT SHIPMENTS TO FINAL CUSTOMER, BY DESTINATION AND ORIGIN 1, 2

(Thousand metric tons)

Portland cement Masonry cementCEMENT—2010 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 16.17 Destination and origin 2009 2010 2009 2010 Destination:

Vermont 3 95 103 2 1 Virginia 1,526 1,368 80 76 Washington 1,437 1,322 1 (4) West Virginia 402 426 14 12 Wisconsin 3 1,410 1,431 10 9 Wyoming 348 322 (4) (4)

Total 5 68,885 68,544 2,102 1,913 Puerto Rico 979 808 ( 4 ) 3 Foreign countries 6 502 707 ( 4 ) ( 4 )

Grand total 5 70,366 70,059 2,102 1,918 Origin:

United States 63,486 63,627 2,070 1,897 Puerto Rico 932 731 -- ( 4 ) Foreign countries 7 5,948 5,701 32 21

Total shipments 5 70,366 70,059 2,102 1,918

Data do not match the imports in tables 17–20. to be accurate to no more than three significant digits.

3 Has no cement plants.

4 Less than 1⁄2 unit.
5 Data may not add to totals shown because of independent rounding. 2 Data are developed from consolidated monthly surveys of shipments by companies and may differ from data in tables 1, 10–12
,

7 Imported cement sold to final customers in the United States as reported by domestic producers and other importers. -- Zero.

6 Includes shipments to U.S. possessions and territories. 1 Includes cement p roduced from im p orted clinker and im p orted cement shi pp ed b y domestic p roducers and im p orters. Portland cement Masonry cement

and 14–15, which are from annual surveys of individual plants and importers. Although presented unrounded, data are thought TABLE 9—Continued CEMENT SHIPMENTS TO FINAL CUSTOMER, BY DESTINATION AND ORIGIN 1, 2

(Thousand metric tons)16.18 [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2010 Total to In bulk In bags 3 In bulk In bags 3 In bulk In bags 3 customers 4
2009:

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

Total 4 20,700 125 37,500 1,040 29,900 r 404 68,900 r, 5
2010:

Railroad 8,980 6 1,660 10 467 4 2,140 Truck 3,570 83 37,600 966 27,200 307 66,100 Barge and boat 6,270 15 67 -- 93 58 218

Total 4 18,800 105 39,300 977 27,800 370 68,400 5 TABLE 10 SHIPMENTS OF PORTLAND CEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES, BY TYPE OF CARRIER 1, 2

(Thousand metric tons)

2 Data are rounded to no more than three significant digits because they contain estimates.
3 Includes packages, bags, and supersacks.

4 Data may not add to totals shown because of independent rounding.
5 Shipments are based on an annual survey of plants and importers; may differ from totals in table 9, which are based on consolidated monthly data. Plant to terminal Plant to customer Terminal to customer

r Revised. -- Zero.

1 Includes imported cement and cement made from imported clinker. Excludes Puerto Rico.CEMENT—2010 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 16.19 Quantity 3 Average Quantity 3 Average (thousand Total (per (thousand Total (per District 4 metric tons) (thousands) metric ton) metric tons) (thousands) metric ton) Maine and New York 2,560 r, 5 $248,000 r, 5 $97.00 5 2,459 $225,563 $91.72 Pennsylvania, eastern 2,995 285,000 5 95.00 5 3,887 6 369,000 5, 6 95.00 5, 6 Pennsylvania, western 949 90,800 5 95.50 5 W 6 W 6 W 6 Illinois 2,014 191,586 95.11 2,016 179,580 89.07 Indiana 1,951 169,069 86.66 1,907 153,623 80.55 Michigan 4,114 406,143 98.72 3,920 5 393,000 5 100.50 5 Ohio 582 55,691 95.69 598 55,111 92.18 Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota 3,382 365,298 108.01 3,017 311,194 103.13 Kansas 1,627 166,000 5 102.00 5 1,596 155,919 97.66 Missouri 4,219 414,000 5 98.00 5 6,253 517,000 5 82.50 5 Florida 3,790 5 371,000 5 98.00 5 3,260 5 295,000 5 90.50 5 Georgia, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia 4,141 367,335 88.70 3,978 334,768 84.16 South Carolina 1,826 165,160 90.46 1,894 164,338 86.78 Alabama 3,515 315,408 89.72 3,024 252,000 5 83.00 5 Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee 1,885 187,660 99.53 1,740 162,965 93.65 Arkansas and Oklahoma 2,300 231,363 100.60 2,254 219,468 97.38 Texas, northern 4,557 453,000 5 99.50 5 4,511 412,000 5 91.00 5 Texas, southern 4,730 452,380 95.65 5,300 455,862 86.01 Arizona and New Mexico 2,173 255,708 117.68 1,786 182,539 102.20 Colorado and Wyoming 1,932 190,508 98.63 2,090 5 194,000 5 93.00 5 Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah 2,063 199,834 96.87 1,971 182,061 92.36 Alaska and Hawaii 406 66,690 164.27 357 57,700 5 162.00 5 California 6,835 618,000 5 90.50 5 6,880 5 543,000 5 79.00 5 Oregon and Washington 1,651 150,011 90.85 1,244 111,988 90.05 Importers 7 2,747 315,000 5 115.00 5 2,480 5 289,000 5 116.50 5

Total or average 8 68,900 r, 5 6,730,000 5 97.50 5 68,400 5 6,220,000 5 91.00 5
Puerto Rico 978 5 W W 830 W W

Grand total 8 69,900 5 W W 69,300 5 W W

The data are ex-terminal for independently reporting terminals. Data include all varieties of portland cement and both bulk and bag shipments. Unless otherwise specified, data are presented unrounded. Unrounded or not, unit value data should be viewed as value indicator s, accurate to no more than the nearest $0.50 or $1.00 per metric ton.

3 Tonnages are those by reporting entities in the district but may include shipments into other districts. They differ from the d ata in table 9, which are the actual reported sales into the specific States. 2 Values are mill net or ex-plant (free on board) valuations of total sales to final customers, including sales from plants’ exte rnal distribution terminals. Value 2 Value 2

r Revised. W Withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data.

1 Includes gray and white portland cement. Includes cement made from imported clinker. Even where presented unrounded, data are t hought to be accurate to no more than three significant digits. TABLE 11 PORTLAND CEMENT SHIPPED IN THE UNITED STATES, BY DISTRICT 1

2010 2009

8 Data may not add to totals shown because of independent rounding. 4 District is the location of the reporting entities, not necessarily the location of sales (see table 9 for sales data, by State ). Specific districts include shipments by importers where district assignations were possible.

5 Data are rounded (unit values to the nearest $0.50) because they include estimates.

6 For 2010, data for Western Pennsylvania are included with those for Eastern Pennsylvania.

7 Importers for which district assignations were not possible.16.20 [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2010 Quantity 4 Average Quantity 4 Average (thousand Total (per (thousand Total (per District 5 metric tons) (thousands) metric ton) metric tons) (thousands) metric ton) Maine and New York 56 $6,265 $112.54 46 $4,712 $101.96 Pennsylvania 187 25,300 6 135.00 6 172 20,600 6 120.00 6 Illinois, Indiana, Ohio 230 33,900 6 147.50 6 213 30,800 6 145.00 6 Michigan 95 11,538 121.87 78 9,680 6 123.50 6 Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota 15 1,921 128.09 1 98 100.88 Kansas and Missouri 51 6,353 124.50 92 6 12,000 6 129.50 6
Florida 192 6 29,100 6 151.50 6 191 25,230 131.92 Georgia, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia 214 36,547 170.78 199 34,143 171.68 South Carolina 169 21,376 126.43 163 19,536 120.19 Alabama 242 29,735 122.90 192 24,448 127.48 Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee 57 8,360 146.39 55 8,033 144.87 Arkansas and Oklahoma 93 11,100 6 119.00 6 93 11,286 121.14 Texas 221 31,000 140.40 187 25,100 6 134.50 6 Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada,

New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming 42 5,387 129.76 32 4,200 129.81 Alaska and Hawaii 2 620 289.54 3 796 6 286.50 6 California, Oregon, Washington 232 6 27,700 6 119.50 6 185 20,177 109.34 Importers 7 6 6 1,220 6 191.50 6 6 6 1,070 6 174.00 6

Total or average 8 2,100 6 287,000 6 136.50 6 1,910 6 252,000 6 132.00 6 TABLE 12

1 Shipments are those by cement companies to final customers and include imported cement and cement made from imported clinker. S ales are those by cement MASONRY CEMENT SHIPPED IN THE UNITED STATES, BY DISTRICT 1, 2

2009 2010

plants and exclude sales of masonry cement made by portland cement customers from purchased portland cement. Data exclude Puert o Rico, which did not record any masonry cement sales. Even where presented unrounded, data are thought to be accurate to no more than three signific ant digits.

2 Data include true masonry, plastic, portland-lime, and stucco cements.
3 Values are mill net or ex-plant (free on board) valuations of total sales to final customers, including sales from plants exter nal distribution terminals. Value 3 Value 3

district assignations were possible.

6 Data are rounded (unit values to the nearest $0.50) because they include estimates.

7 Importers for which district assignations were not possible.
8 Data may not add to totals shown because of independent rounding. The data are ex-terminal for independently reporting terminals. Data include both bulk and bag shipments. Unless otherwise spec ified, data are presented unrounded. Unrounded or not, unit value data should be viewed as value indicators, accurate to no more than the nearest $0.50 o r even $1.00 per metric ton.

4 Tonnages are those by reporting entities in the district but may include shipments into other districts. They differ from the d ata in table 9, which are the actual reported sales into the specific States.

5 District is the location of the reporting entities, not necessarily the location of sales (see table 9 for sales data, by State ). Specific districts include importers forCEMENT—2010 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 16.21 Masonry All Year Gray White 3 Total cement cement 2009 96.50 211.00 97.50 136.50 99.00 2010 90.00 199.00 91.00 132.00 92.00 TABLE 13 AVERAGE MILL NET VALUE OF CEMENT SOLD IN THE UNITED STATES 1, 2

(Dollars per metric ton)

Portland cement

1 Values are average of sales to final customers, free on board the plant or independently reporting terminal. Values include any bagging charges, but exclude delivery charges to customers or to external terminals. Data exclude Puerto Rico.

2 Data are rounded to the nearest $0.50 per metric ton because they contain estimates.

3 Data for white cement include a component of resales showing significant price markups.16.22 [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2010 Oil well, Ready- Concrete Building mining, Government mixed product material waste and District 2 concrete manufacturers Contractors dealers stabilization other 3 Total 4, 5 Maine and New York 1,750 256 216 213 -- 64 2,459 Pennsylvania 2,260 874 390 205 24 139 3,887 Illinois 1,390 101 185 31 224 92 2,016 Indiana 1,340 214 234 38 12 71 1,907 Michigan 2,840 426 527 110 13 7 3,920 Ohio 471 66 39 11 12 -- 598 Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota 2,300 249 345 20 94 14 3,017 Kansas 1,260 141 97 51 50 1 1,596 Missouri 4,510 619 739 79 126 182 6,253 Florida 2,340 625 155 110 3 26 3,260 Georgia, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia 2,790 767 217 96 2 103 3,978 South Carolina 1,270 251 154 82 2 134 1,894 Alabama 2,110 466 291 95 19 44 3,024 Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee 1,400 173 81 50 21 19 1,740 Arkansas and Oklahoma 1,340 92 583 106 122 9 2,254 Texas, northern 2,480 290 847 105 706 84 4,511 Texas, southern 3,570 443 595 233 442 21 5,300 Arizona and New Mexico 1,350 274 98 39 16 14 1,786 Colorado and Wyoming 1,440 148 256 56 187 1 2,090 Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah 1,350 173 155 65 203 29 1,971 Alaska and Hawaii 277 55 8 17 -- -- 357 California 4,830 880 444 565 106 49 6,880 Oregon and Washington 934 144 81 55 20 10 1,244 Importers 6 1,710 257 188 46 159 125 2,480

Total 5 47,300 7,980 6,920 2,480 2,560 1,240 68,400 Puerto Rico 429 69 31 300 -- -- 830

Grand total 5 47,700 8,050 7 6,950 8 2,780 2,560 9 1,240 69,300

unspecified—2,170.

9 Grand total shipments include oil well drilling—2,140; mining—221; and waste stabilization—201. 3 Includes shipments to miscellaneous customer types and for which customer types were not specified.

4 District totals are unrounded except in accord with table 11.
5 Data may not add to totals shown because of independent rounding.

6 Shipments by importers for which district assignations were not possible. TABLE 14 PORTLAND CEMENT SHIPMENTS IN 2010, BY DISTRICT AND TYPE OF CUSTOMER 1

(Thousand metric tons)

-- Zero.

1 Includes imported cement and cement made from imported clinker. Except for district totals, data have been rounded to three sig nificant digits, but are likely

7 Grand total shipments to concrete product manufacturers include brick and block—2,760; precast and prestressed—2,230; pipe—889; and other or 2 District is the location of the reporting entity, not the location of sales (see table 9 for sales data, by State). Specific di stricts include shipments by importers for which district assignations were possible.

8 Grand total shipments to contractors include airport—166; road paving—3,710; soil cement—1,900; and other or unspecified—1,180. accurate to only two significant digits. District totals are likely accurate to no more than three significant digits.CEMENT—2010 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 16.23 Type 4 2009 2010 General use and moderate heat (Types I and II) 5, 6 54,900 r 53,500 High early strength (Type III) 2,460 2,590 Sulfate resisting (Type V) 5 8,610 8,630 Block 167 154 Oil well 846 1,300 White 7 577 638 Blended: 8

Portland, natural pozzolans 34 48 Portland, ground granulated blast furnace slag 580 953 Portland, fly ash 357 304 Portland, other pozzolans 9 325 263

Total blended 10 1,300 1,570 Expansive and regulated fast setting 13 18 Miscellaneous 11 27 30

Grand total 10 68,900 r 68,400 TABLE 15 PORTLAND CEMENT SHIPMENTS IN THE UNITED STATES, BY TYPE OF CEMENT 1, 2, 3

(Thousand metric tons)

5 Type II/V and similar sulfate-resisting cement hybrids are included within Type V. 4 Sold mostly under specifications ASTM C–150, ASTM C–595, and ASTM C–1157.

11 Includes low heat (Type IV), waterproof, and other portland-type cements. 8 Cements sold under ASTM C–590 and those under ASTM C–1157 that contain pozzolans. 1 Includes sales of imported cement. Excludes Puerto Rico.

3 Gray portland-type cements unless otherwise specified.

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

2 Data are rounded to no more than three significant digits.

9 Includes blends with cement kiln dust, silica fume, or other pozzolans, and blends containing multiple pozzolans. 6 Includes ASTM C–1157 general use cements that contain no pozzolans.

7 White or colored portland-type cements. Most are Types I or II but may include Types III and V and block cements.16.24 [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2010 

### Country Quantity Value 2 

### Quantity Value 2


### United States:

Angola 2 323 1 1,153 Anguilla 4 255 ( 3 

### ) 3 Aruba 2 336 1 157 Australia ( 3 

### ) 106 1 404 Bahamas, The 48 5,628 99 9,063 Belize 36 1,513 7 693 Brazil ( 3 

### ) 39 3 213 Canada 674 79,836 807 113,598 Cayman Islands ( 3 

### ) 95 1 103 China ( 3 

### ) 133 2 955 Colombia 1 680 2 715 Costa Rica ( 3 

### ) 19 3 135 Dominican Republic 2 219 1 483 Greece 15 729 14 637 Haiti 1 62 13 1,056 Hong Kong 1 326 1 402 India ( 3 

### ) 97 2 264 Ireland 4 225 6 367 Israel ( 3 

### ) 92 1 262 Jamaica 26 2,737 66 6,556 Japan 1 225 11 2,526 Madagascar -- -- 1 60 Mexico 23 5,915 39 8,914 Netherlands Antilles 1 196 2 366 Pakistan 1 43 ( 3 

### ) 82 Panama 28 3,794 67 8,051 Peru 1 198 1 364 Russia 1 47 ( 3 

### ) 90 St. Christopher and Nevis 2 102 ( 3 

### ) 57 Suriname ( 3 

### ) 39 1 108 Sweden 1 77 ( 3 

### ) 81 Taiwan ( 3 

### ) 149 1 3,099 Trinidad and Tobago ( 3 

### ) 98 1 346 Turks and Caicos Islands ( 3 

### ) 55 8 759 United Kingdom ( 3 

### ) 75 9 1,614 Other 6 r 

### 2,868 r 

### 7 4,629

Total 4 

### 884 107,330 1,178 168,308 Puerto Rico:

British Virgin Islands 15 1,807 4 664 Netherlands Antilles ( 3 

### ) 5 3 231 Turks and Caicos Islands 1 152 -- -- Other ( 3 

### ) 30 ( 3 

### ) 3

Total 4 

### 16 1,994 7 898
Grand total 4 

### 900 109,323 1,185 169,206 See footnotes at end of table. 2009 2010 TABLE 16 U.S. EXPORTS OF HYDRAULIC CEMENT AND CLINKER, BY COUNTRY 1



### (Thousand metric tons and thousand dollars)CEMENT—2010 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 16.25 

### cost of loading. TABLE 16—Continued U.S. EXPORTS OF HYDRAULIC CEMENT AND CLINKER, BY COUNTRY 1

4 

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

Source: U.S. Census Bureau. r 

### Revised. -- Zero.

1 

### Includes portland and masonry cements.

3 

### Less than 1⁄2 unit. 2 

### Free alongside ship value. The value of exports at the U.S. seaport or border point of export is based on the transaction price , including inland freight, insurance, and other charges incurred in placing the merchandise alongside the carrier. The value excludes the16.26 [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2010 Country Quantity Customs 2 C.i.f. 3 Quantity Customs 2 C.i.f. 3
United States:

Algeria 14 1,576 2,123 9 811 1,135 Canada 3,426 272,829 291,298 3,410 265,248 283,314 China 608 35,251 50,161 655 34,975 51,111 Colombia 654 39,799 56,216 315 19,652 27,367 Croatia 15 5,687 6,890 24 9,459 11,346 Denmark 69 9,924 12,302 54 9,653 13,262 Dominican Republic 4 307 381 (4) 10 11 Egypt 55 6,345 7,965 56 5,160 7,097 France 65 20,373 21,607 91 31,318 32,960 Greece 186 10,705 12,429 191 9,173 11,918 India 1 151 209 1 68 102 Japan 1 523 654 28 2,348 2,552 Korea, Republic of 855 34,694 56,700 1,018 39,214 61,801 Mexico 366 35,342 39,132 370 36,703 40,138 Netherlands 2 1,925 2,539 3 3,363 3,735 Sweden 74 3,821 7,074 83 3,524 6,804 Taiwan 254 11,332 16,677 265 11,242 17,825 Thailand 21 2,594 3,801 16 2,159 3,382 Trinidad and Tobago -- -- -- 8 544 551 Turkey 95 7,858 12,220 21 1,881 2,637 United Kingdom 1 153 281 1 171 290 Venezuela -- -- -- 8 2,648 3,405 Other 1 r 403 r 488 r 1 436 544

Tota l 5 6,767 501,592 601,148 6,626 489,762 583,288 Puerto Rico:

Colombia 5 674 862 7 898 1,172 Korea, Republic of 27 1,350 2,322 27 1,350 2,322 Mexico 14 1,641 2,216 12 1,393 1,970 Spain 81 5,694 7,064 109 7,206 9,166 Other (4) 174 r 181 r (4) 80 92

Total 5 127 9,532 12,645 155 10,927 14,721
Grand total 5 6,894 511,125 613,793 6,781 500,689 598,009 Value Value

r Revised. -- Zero.

1 Includes portland, masonry, and other hydraulic cements.

3 Cost, insurance, and freight. The import value represents the customs value plus insurance, freight, and other delivery charges to the first port of entry.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 4 Less than 1⁄2 unit. TABLE 17 U.S. IMPORTS FOR CONSUMPTION OF HYDRAULIC CEMENT AND CLINKER, BY COUNTRY 1

(Thousand metric tons and thousand dollars)

2009 2010

U.S. import duties, freight, insurance, and other charges incurred in bringing the merchandise to the United States. 2 Customs value. The price actually paid or payable for merchandise when sold for exportation to the United States, excluding

5 Data may not add to totals shown because of independent rounding.CEMENT—2010 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 16.27 

### Customs district and country Quantity Customs 2 

### C.i.f. 3 

### Quantity Customs 2 

### C.i.f. 3


### United States:

Anchorage, AK:

Canada 9 745 2,267 5 298 1,017 China 15 1,036 1,561 12 842 842 Korea, Republic of 72 3,165 5,658 95 3,968 7,676 Taiwan 16 1,047 1,066 -- -- --

Total 4 

### 112 5,994 10,552 112 5,108 9,536 Baltimore, MD:

China -- -- -- 1 18 22 Other (5) 

### 62 70 (5) 

### 39 43

Total 4 (5) 

### 62 70 1 57 64 Boston, MA:

Canada 77 4,196 6,824 23 1,010 1,693 Other -- -- -- (5) 

### 36 37

Total 4 

### 77 4,196 6,824 23 1,046 1,731 Buffalo, NY:

Canada 574 48,103 52,028 590 49,366 52,718 Other (5) 

### 13 13 (5) 

### 24 24

Total 4 

### 574 48,116 52,041 590 49,390 52,742 Charleston, SC, Other (5) 

### 59 70 (5) 

### 71 82 Chicago, IL, Other (5) 

### 218 280 1 744 865 Cleveland, OH:

Canada 493 34,399 36,894 554 40,960 44,235 Value Value TABLE 18 U.S. IMPORTS FOR CONSUMPTION OF HYDRAULIC CEMENT

AND CLINKER, BY CUSTOMS DISTRICT AND COUNTRY 1



### (Thousand metric tons and thousand dollars)

2009 2010

Canada 493 34,399 36,894 554 40,960 44,235 Other (5) 

### 159 183 1 800 950

Total 4 

### 494 34,558 37,077 555 41,759 45,185 Columbia-Snake, ID, OR, WA: Canada 55 4,256 4,503 56 3,802 4,007 China 237 13,016 19,757 277 12,893 20,154 Other -- -- -- (5) 

### 8 8

Total 4 

### 292 17,272 24,259 332 16,703 24,169 Dallas-Fort Worth, TX, Netherlands (5) 

### 34 95 -- -- -- Detroit, MI:

Canada 841 66,897 68,458 939 72,812 78,669 Other (5) 

### 101 142 (5) 

### 175 192

Total 4 

### 841 66,998 68,600 939 72,988 78,862 Duluth, MN, France -- -- -- (5) 

### 3 3 El Paso, TX:

Canada -- -- -- (5) 

### 33 36 Mexico 275 23,449 25,875 266 23,407 25,705

Total 4 

### 275 23,449 25,875 266 23,440 25,741 Great Falls, MT, Other (5) 

### 189 227 (5) 

### 79 109 See footnotes at end of table.16.28 [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2010 

### Customs district and country Quantity Customs 2 

### C.i.f. 3 

### Quantity Customs 2 

### C.i.f. 3 

### Honolulu, HI:

China (5) 

### 14 47 (5) 

### 15 24 Korea, Republic of 84 3,569 7,329 165 7,278 10,421 Taiwan 188 8,281 12,233 112 4,928 7,537 Thailand 3 188 552 -- -- --

Total 4 

### 276 12,052 20,160 277 12,221 17,983 Houston-Galveston, TX:

Algeria 6 728 1,022 -- -- -- China 2 186 274 4 390 402 Colombia 235 14,822 20,624 9 1,239 1,514 Egypt 28 3,230 3,988 28 2,591 3,543 Korea, Republic of 472 19,219 30,821 571 21,418 34,614 Taiwan 49 1,968 3,198 -- -- -- Other ( 5 

### ) 124 146 1 404 484

Total 4 

### 793 40,278 60,074 612 26,041 40,558 Laredo, TX, Mexico 85 11,467 12,646 88 11,887 12,441 Los Angeles, CA:

China 21 2,408 2,876 26 2,926 3,149 Egypt 1 68 72 3 255 349 Thailand 12 1,629 2,202 10 1,322 2,064 Other 1 404 592 1 203 303

Total 4 

### 35 4,508 5,741 39 4,706 5,864 Miami, FL: TABLE 18—Continued U.S. IMPORTS FOR CONSUMPTION OF HYDRAULIC CEMENT

AND CLINKER, BY CUSTOMS DISTRICT AND COUNTRY 1



### (Thousand metric tons and thousand dollars)

2009 2010 Value Value

Miami, FL:

Algeria 7 848 1,101 9 811 1,135 Colombia 6 790 997 5 735 877 Egypt 19 2,197 2,807 15 1,402 1,954 Mexico 5 410 590 15 1,372 1,915 Sweden 73 3,270 6,455 82 3,057 6,230 Turkey 74 6,618 9,585 21 1,871 2,628 Other ( 5 

### ) 41 73 ( 5 

### ) 27 30

Total 4 

### 185 14,174 21,609 147 9,276 14,769 Minneapolis, MN:

Canada 113 12,105 12,117 118 13,923 13,937 Other ( 5 

### ) 31 31 ( 5 

### )56

Total 4 

### 113 12,136 12,148 118 13,929 13,943 Mobile, AL, Mexico ( 5 

### ) 7 12 -- -- -- New Orleans, LA:

China 5 1,062 1,269 9 1,990 2,165 Croatia 15 5,410 6,542 22 8,891 10,567 Korea, Republic of 34 1,273 1,961 47 1,533 3,056 Taiwan 1 36 180 -- -- -- Turkey 21 1,240 2,634 -- -- -- Other -- -- -- ( 5 

### ) 25 28

Total 4 

### 75 9,021 12,586 78 12,438 15,816 See footnotes at end of table.CEMENT—2010 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 16.29 Customs district and country Quantity Customs 2 C.i.f. 3 Quantity Customs 2 C.i.f. 3 New York City, NY:

Denmark 24 2,804 3,655 21 2,137 2,758 France 3 107 110 ( 5 ) 39 45 Greece 186 10,705 12,429 191 9,173 11,918 Other 1 260 355 1 299 378

Total 4 214 13,876 16,550 213 11,648 15,099 Nogales, AZ, Mexico ( 5 ) 9 10 -- -- --

Norfolk, VA:

Canada 53 5,003 5,373 13 1,366 1,454 Egypt 3 389 482 1 122 177 France 63 20,222 21,447 91 31,175 32,792 Sweden 1 551 619 1 342 421 Other ( 5 ) 34 39 8 2,663 3,420

Total 4 120 26,198 27,961 113 35,667 38,264 Ogdensburg, NY:

Canada 248 23,489 23,989 174 14,839 15,398 Other ( 5 )55 ( 5 ) 13 14

Total 4 248 23,494 23,994 174 14,852 15,412 Pembina, ND, Canada 162 12,370 12,455 167 10,701 10,787 Philadelphia, PA:

Korea Rep blic of 139 4 988 7 063 139 5 018 6 033 TABLE 18—Continued U.S. IMPORTS FOR CONSUMPTION OF HYDRAULIC CEMENT

AND CLINKER, BY CUSTOMS DISTRICT AND COUNTRY 1

(Thousand metric tons and thousand dollars)

2009 2010 Value Value

Korea, Repu bli c o f 139 4,988 7,063 139 5,018 6,033 Netherlands 1 814 937 1 1,261 1,400 Other ( 5 ) 111 153 ( 5 ) 59 105

Total 4 140 5,913 8,153 141 6,337 7,538 Portland, ME:

Canada 37 4,469 4,954 26 2,372 2,676 Japan 6 -- -- -- 27 6 1,332 1,332

Total 4 37 4,469 4,954 53 3,705 4,009 Providence, RI, Canada 62 4,069 6,273 40 2,290 3,404 San Francisco, CA:

China 211 10,114 13,216 42 2,555 3,168 Egypt 1 108 173 2 182 265 India 1 127 184 1 68 102 Taiwan -- -- -- 153 6,314 10,288 Thailand 6 777 1,047 6 799 1,260

Total 4 219 11,126 14,620 203 9,919 15,083 Savannah, GA:

Colombia 221 12,861 18,609 149 8,447 12,201 Egypt 3 354 443 7 608 809 Other ( 5 ) 256 398 ( 5 ) 255 282

Total 4 224 13,471 19,450 156 9,310 13,292 See footnotes at end of table.16.30 [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2010 Customs district and country Quantity Customs 2 C.i.f. 3 Quantity Customs 2 C.i.f. 3 Seattle, WA:

Canada 611 42,802 44,572 630 43,279 44,627 China 117 7,158 10,833 285 13,170 20,940 Japan 1 398 519 1 550 703 Korea, Republic of 54 2,480 3,869 -- -- -- Other ( 5 ) 40 61 ( 5 ) 116 139

Total 4 783 52,879 59,853 916 57,115 66,410 St. Albans, VT:

Canada 89 9,904 10,571 75 8,181 8,640 Other ( 5 )44 ( 5 )77

Total 4 89 9,907 10,575 75 8,188 8,647 St. Louis, MO:

Croatia -- -- -- 1 371 508 Other ( 5 ) 340 459 ( 5 ) 501 571

Total 4 ( 5 ) 340 459 1 872 1,079 Colombia 58 3,225 4,557 22 1,640 2,089 Denmark 45 7,117 8,644 34 7,510 10,497

Total 4 103 10,342 13,201 56 9,150 12,586 U.S. Virgin Islands:

Colombia -- -- -- 13 291 302 Dominican Republic 4 307 381 -- -- -- Trinidad and Tobago -- -- -- 8 544 551 TABLE 18—Continued U.S. IMPORTS FOR CONSUMPTION OF HYDRAULIC CEMENT

Value Value AND CLINKER, BY CUSTOMS DISTRICT AND COUNTRY 1

(Thousand metric tons and thousand dollars)

2009 2010

Total 4 4 307 381 21 835 853 Wilmington, NC:

Colombia 134 8,033 11,313 117 7,270 10,343 Netherlands -- -- -- ( 5 ) 19 20

Total 4 134 8,033 11,313 117 7,289 10,363
U.S. total 4 6,767 501,592 601,148 6,626 6 489,762 583,288 Puerto Rico (San Juan): Colombia 5 674 862 7 898 1,172 Korea, Republic of 27 1,350 2,322 27 1,350 2,322 Mexico 14 1,641 2,216 12 1,393 1,970 Spain 81 5,694 7,064 109 7,206 9,166 Other ( 5 ) 174 181 ( 5 ) 80 92

Total 4 127 9,532 12,645 155 10,927 14,721
Grand total 4 6,894 511,125 613,793 6,781 6 500,689 598,009 -- Zero.

2 Customs value. The price actually paid or payable for merchandise when sold for exportation to the United States, excluding U.S . import duties, freight,insurance, and other charges incurred in bringing the merchandise to the United States. 1 Includes all varieties of hydraulic cement and clicker.

3 Cost, insurance, and freight. The import value represents the customs value plus insurance, freight, and other delivery charges to

Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 4 Data may not add to totals shown because of independent rounding.
5 Less than 1⁄2 unit.

6 Material (27,070 metric tons in August 2010) from Japan into Portland, ME, is granulated blast furnace slag, not hydraulic ceme nt as recorded in error by the importer. the first port of entry.CEMENT—2010 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 16.31 Country Quantity Customs 1 C.i.f. 2 Quantity Customs 1 C.i.f. 2
United States:

Canada 2,642 205,197 222,340 2,626 199,772 216,660 China 573 30,463 44,369 606 28,532 44,096 Colombia 636 37,333 52,800 274 15,638 22,335 Dominican Republic 4 307 381 ( 3 ) 10 11 France 3 107 110 -- -- -- Greece 186 10,705 12,429 191 9,173 11,918 Korea, Republic of 854 34,641 56,563 1,017 39,169 61,707 Mexico 185 11,770 13,305 184 12,311 13,833 Sweden 73 3,270 6,455 82 3,057 6,230 Taiwan 254 11,332 16,677 265 11,242 17,825 Thailand 3 188 552 ( 3 ) 11 13 Other ( 3 ) 216 r 324 r 9 750 820

Tota l 4, 5 5,414 345,529 426,307 5,254 319,665 395,448 Puerto Rico:

Dominican Republic -- -- -- ( 3 )22 Korea, Republic of 27 1,350 2,322 27 1,350 2,322 Spain 81 5,694 7,064 109 7,186 9,146

Total 4, 5 108 7,044 9,386 136 8,539 11,470
Grand total 4, 5 5,521 352,572 435,693 5,390 328,204 406,918

these quantities are included in table 20.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau. r Revised. -- Zero.

charges to the first port of entry. TABLE 19

3 Less than 1⁄2 unit.

4 Data may not add to totals shown because of independent rounding. Value Value 2009 2010 U.S. IMPORTS FOR CONSUMPTION OF GRAY PORTLAND CEMENT, BY COUNTRY

1 The price actually paid or payable for merchandise when sold for exportation to the United States, excluding U.S. (Thousand metric tons and thousand dollars)

import duties, freight, insurance, and other charges incurred in bringing the merchandise to the United States.

2 Cost, insurance, and freight. The import value represents the customs value plus insurance, freight, and other delivery

5 Total imports do not include gray portland cement that was misregistered by importers under the white cement tariff code;16.32 [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2010 Country Quantity Customs 1 C.i.f. 2, 3 Quantity Customs 1 C.i.f. 2, 3
United States:

Algeria 14 1,576 2,123 9 811 1,135 Canada 251 33,932 34,681 252 34,814 35,573 China 29 3,396 4,125 38 4,105 4,407 Colombia 18 2,466 3,415 20 2,792 3,278 Denmark 69 9,921 12,300 54 9,647 13,255 Egypt 53 6,028 7,628 56 5,160 7,097 India 1 130 178 1 68 102 Korea, Republic of 2 53 137 ( 4 ) 45 94 Mexico 113 15,822 17,357 121 16,560 17,832 Thailand 18 2,406 3,249 16 2,149 3,369 Turkey 95 7,858 12,220 21 1,871 2,628 United Kingdom 1 99 219 ( 4 ) 121 235 Other ( 4 ) 77 ( 4 ) 30 33

Total 5 664 6 83,693 97,638 588 78,173 89,038 Puerto Rico:

Colombia 5 674 862 7 898 1,172 Mexico 14 1,641 2,216 12 1,393 1,970 Other

-- -- -- ( 4 ) 51 54

Total 5 19 2,315 3,078 19 2,342 3,195
Grand total 5 683 6 86,008 100,715 607 80,515 92,233

Source: U.S. Census Bureau. TABLE 20 U.S. IMPORTS FOR CONSUMPTION OF WHITE CEMENT, BY COUNTRY

(Thousand metric tons and thousand dollars)

2009 2010 Value Value

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

. import duties, freight, insurance, and other charges incurred in bringing the merchandise to the United States.

2 Cost, insurance, and freight. The import value represents the customs value plus insurance, freight, and other delivery charges to

3 Values of less than $90.00 (c.i.f.) per metric ton likely indicate the mistaken total or partial inclusion of data for gray por tland or

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

cement tariff code. -- Zero.

the first port of entry.

4 Less than 1⁄2 unit. similar cement or clinker. This error happens when the importer records the wrong tariff number with the U.S. Customs Service.

6 Total imports of white cement include substantial quantities of gray cement that were misregistered by importers under the whit e Values that exceed $200 per ton likely indicate misidentified specialty cement, not white cement.CEMENT—2010 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 16.33 Country Quantity Customs 2 C.i.f. 3 Quantity Customs 2 C.i.f. 3 Canada 489 30,192 30,459 501 27,512 27,799 China 3 709 855 1 175 231 Colombia -- -- -- 21 1,222 1,754 Egypt 3 318 337 -- -- -- France 62 19,571 20,732 89 29,595 31,090 United Kingdom -- -- -- (4) 7 7

Total 5 556 50,789 52,383 613 58,511 60,882 Value

Source: U.S. Census Bureau. -- Zero.

1 For all types of hydraulic cement. TABLE 21 U.S. IMPORTS FOR CONSUMPTION OF CLINKER, BY COUNTRY 1

(Thousand metric tons and thousand dollars)

2009 2010 Value

2 Customs value. The price actually paid or payable for merchandise when sold for exportation to the United States, excluding U.S. import duties, freight, insurance, and other charges incurred in bringing in the merchandise to the United States.

3 Cost, insurance, and freight. The import value represents the customs value plus insurance, freight, and other delivery charges to the first port of entry.

4 Less than 1⁄2 unit.
5 Data may not add to totals shown because of independent rounding.16.34 [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2010 Country 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 e Afghanistan 50 50 e 37 r 32 r 36 3
Albania 525 889 918 r 1,108 r 1,300 Algeria 14,702 15,886 17,398 19,100 r 20,000 Angola e 1,373 3 1,400 1,780 1,800 1,500 Argentina 8,929 9,602 9,703 10,000 e 10,000 Armenia 625 722 770 467 r 488 3
Australia e 9,000 9,200 r 9,400 r 9,200 r 9,000 Austria 4,852 5,203 5,309 4,646 r 4,254 3 Azerbaijan 1,622 1,693 r 1,595 1,286 r 1,279 3
Bahrain 400 400 438 700 r, e 1,200 Bangladesh e 5,100 5,100 5,000 5,000 5,000 Barbados 338 294 316 r 301 r 300 Belarus 3,495 3,821 r 4,219 4,350 4,531 3 Belgium 8,192 9,571 r 6,225 r 9,403 r 8,722 3
Benin e 1,489 3 1,550 1,500 1,500 1,500
Bhutan e 180 180 180 180 180 Bolivia 1,636 1,739 1,985 2,292 2,414 3 Bosnia and Herzegovina 1,226 1,283 1,406 1,074 949 3 Brazil 41,895 46,551 51,970 51,748 59,118 3
Brunei e 240 200 240 220 220 Bulgaria 4,093 4,413 4,903 2,662 3,000 Burkina Faso e 30 30 30 30 30
Burma 4 570 608 676 670 534 3
Cambodia -- 87 772 774 775 Cameroon e 1,000 1,150 3 1,000 1,000 1,000 Canada 14,336 15,078 13,672 10,985 12,431 3 Chile 4,112 4,440 4,622 3,876 3,871 3 China 1,236,770 1,361,170 1,400,000 1,644,000 r 1,880,000 p, 3
Colombia 5 10,038 11,068 10,456 9,232 r 9,488 3 Congo (Brazzaville) e 100 100 105 r 110 r 100 Congo (Kinshasa) 519 530 411 444 530 Costa Rica 1,400 r 2,300 2,500 1,498 r 1,276 3
Côte d’Ivoire 360 r 469 r 360 r 283 r 280 Croatia 3,598 3,587 3,637 2,838 r 2,664 3 Cuba 1,705 1,805 1,707 1,626 r 1,600 Cyprus 1,786 1,873 1,870 e 1,481 r 1,329 3 Czech Republic 4,239 4,899 4,710 3,637 3,345 3 Denmark 2,937 r 2,871 r 2,539 r 1,578 r 2,000 Dominican Republic e 3,777 3 4,100 4,000 3,000 3,000 Ecuador 4,110 4,420 5,493 5,000 e 5,000 Egypt 36,100 r 38,469 r 39,844 r 46,500 48,000 El Salvador 1,311 1,300 e 1,300 e 1,212 r 1,200
Eritrea e 45 45 45 45 45 Estonia 849 937 808 326 375 Ethiopia 1,731 1,626 1,834 2,300 e 2,700 Fiji e 143 145 143 110 110 Finland 1,685 1,743 1,745 1,052 r 1,050 France 22,540 22,300 e 21,700 18,300 18,300
French Guiana e 62 r 62 r 62 62 62
Gabon e 260 229 3 230 230 230 See footnotes at end of table. TABLE 22 HYDRAULIC CEMENT: WORLD PRODUCTION, BY COUNTRY 1, 2

(Thousand metric tons)CEMENT—2010 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 16.35 Country 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 e Georgia e 450 450 450 870 r, 3 857 3 Germany 33,630 33,382 33,581 30,441 29,894 3
Ghana e 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 Greece 15,674 16,667 16,500 e 16,000 e 15,000 Guadeloupe e 230 230 230 230 230
Guatemala e 2,400 r 2,500 2,500 1,500 1,500
Haiti e 290 r 290 r 290 r 290 r 290 Honduras 1,668 r 1,776 r 1,784 r 1,800 e 1,800 Hong Kong e 1,010 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Hungary 3,724 3,552 3,544 3,200 e 3,200
Iceland e 141 3 140 r 138 r 138 r 138
India e 160,000 170,000 185,000 205,000 210,000
Indonesia e 35,000 36,000 36,000 22,195 r, 3 22,000
Iran e 35,300 41,000 44,400 3 50,000 50,000 Iraq e 3,500 4,500 6,453 3 8,500 10,000
Ireland e 4,981 3 4,700 r 3,900 r 2,600 r 2,600 Israel 5,089 5,000 e 4,819 4,759 5,139 3 Italy 47,814 47,542 43,030 36,317 36,300 Jamaica 761 592 725 737 r 723 3 Japan 69,942 67,685 62,810 54,800 51,526 3 Jordan 3,967 4,138 r 4,284 r 3,799 r 4,000 Kazakhstan 4,880 5,699 5,837 r 5,694 r 6,686 3 Kenya 2,174 2,546 2,829 3,320 3,730 Korea, North e 6,160 6,130 6,415 3 6,400 6,400 Korea, Republic of 53,971 52,182 51,653 50,127 47,236 3
Kosovo 6 450 e 470 590 600 e 600
Kuwait e 2,200 3 2,200 2,600 r 2,000 2,000 Kyrgyzstan 1,060 1,230 1,218 579 r 600
Laos e 400 400 400 400 400
Latvia e 280 300 310 650 r 1,100 Lebanon 3,348 r 3,945 r 4,250 r 4,900 r 5,227 3
Liberia 155 157 94 71 r 67 3 Libya 5,300 e 5,206 5,509 6,500 6,000 Lithuania 1,065 1,105 r 1,076 r 583 r 834 3 Luxembourg 901 r 1,081 r 1,091 r 1,000 r 1,078 3 Macedonia 924 945 916 909 910 Madagascar e 150 270 3 270 240 270 Malawi 188 185 240 e 240 e 240 Malaysia 18,400 e 19,480 19,629 r 19,457 r 19,500 Martinique e 220 220 220 220 220 Mauritania 374 410 322 r 340 r 350 Mexico 40,362 38,757 r 37,139 r 35,160 34,502 3
Moldova e 837 3 800 750 700 700 Mongolia 141 180 269 235 r 323 3 Morocco 11,352 r 12,792 r 14,047 r 14,519 r 14,000 Mozambique 7 605 r 665 r 744 r 777 r 884 3 Nepal e, 4 295 300 295 295 r 295
Netherlands e 2,790 3 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 New Caledonia 119 r 122 r 137 r 138 r 160 3
See footnotes at end of table. TABLE 22—Continued HYDRAULIC CEMENT: WORLD PRODUCTION, BY COUNTRY 1, 2

(Thousand metric tons)16.36 [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2010 Country 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 e
New Zealand e 1,120 3 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,200 Nicaragua e 530 530 530 530 530 Niger e 62 r 42 r 40 r 40 40 Nigeria 3,300 4,700 5,000 5,000 r 5,400 Norway e 1,695 3 1,700 1,700 1,650 1,650 Oman 3,611 3,880 3,991 4,000 e 4,200 Pakistan 20,652 25,745 r 26,000 r, e 28,000 r, e 30,000 Panama 1,050 e 1,050 e 1,843 r 1,679 r 1,700 Paraguay e 600 600 600 600 600 Peru 5,782 6,231 6,922 6,862 6,865 p, 3 Philippines 8 12,033 13,048 13,369 14,865 15,900 3 Poland 14,688 17,120 17,207 15,537 15,521 3 Portugal 8,340 12,631 12,650 12,700 12,750 3 Qatar 1,568 2,400 r, e 3,800 r, e 4,095 r 3,780 3
Réunion e 400 400 400 375 375 Romania 8,253 10,060 r 10,660 r 7,902 r 7,008 3 Russia 54,731 r 59,939 r 53,548 r 44,266 r 50,400 Rwanda 103 103 103 92 r 100 Saudi Arabia 27,056 30,369 31,823 36,500 r 42,300 3 Senegal 2,884 3,152 3,084 3,327 r 3,000
Serbia 9 2,565 2,677 2,843 2,232 2,300 Sierra Leone 234 236 254 236 r 230 Slovakia 3,593 3,718 4,157 3,011 2,888 3
Slovenia e 1,269 3 1,300 1,300 1,000 1,000 South Africa, sales 12,658 13,651 13,473 r 11,784 r 13,000 Spain, including Canary Islands 54,033 54,720 42,088 29,505 23,473 3
Sri Lanka e 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 Sudan 202 326 247 r 622 r 962 3
Suriname e 65 65 65 65 65 Sweden 2,952 2,950 2,900 e 2,950 e 2,900
Switzerland e 4,040 3 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 Syria 4,804 5,104 5,336 5,605 6,000 3 Taiwan 19,294 18,957 17,330 15,918 16,301 3 Tajikistan 282 313 190 195 r 288 3 Tanzania 1,370 1,630 1,756 1,941 r 2,000 Thailand 39,408 35,668 31,651 33,562 r 36,496 3 Togo e 800 800 800 800 800 Trinidad and Tobago 883 902 r 958 870 r 800 Tunisia 6,932 7,052 7,559 7,511 r 7,500 Turkey 47,499 49,553 54,027 53,973 62,737 3
Turkmenistan 921 r 941 r 1,026 r 1,100 r 1,100 Uganda e 630 650 650 650 650 Ukraine 13,732 15,000 14,918 9,496 9,457 3 United Arab Emirates 13,000 r, e 16,000 r, e 21,885 18,997 18,000 United Kingdom 11,471 r 11,887 10,071 7,623 r 7,600 United States, including Puerto Rico 10 99,712 96,850 87,610 64,843 r 67,176 3 Uruguay e 620 620 620 620 620
Uzbekistan e 5,700 6,500 3 6,600 6,850 r 6,872 3
See footnotes at end of table. TABLE 22—Continued HYDRAULIC CEMENT: WORLD PRODUCTION, BY COUNTRY 1, 2

(Thousand metric tons)CEMENT—2010 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 16.37 

### Country 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 e


### Venezuela e 

### 11,000 r 

### 11,000 r 

### 11,000 r 

### 11,000 r 

### 11,000 Vietnam 32,690 37,102 40,009 47,900 50,000 Yemen 1,470 1,728 2,111 r 

### 2,118 r 

### 3,000
Zambia e 

### 550 r 

### 540 r 

### 560 r 

### 880 r 

### 1,000
Zimbabwe e 

### 700 400 400 700 r 

### 700

Total e 

### 2,620,000 r 

### 2,810,000 2,850,000 3,030,000 r 

### 3,310,000

10 

### Portland and masonry cements only. Includes a small (less than 0.3% per year) component of double-counting where portland cemen t (not clinker) is consumed to make masonary cement; the precise amount of double-counting can not be determined because of the involvement of portland cement stockpiles. 1 

### World totals and estimated data are rounded to no more than three significant digits; may not add to totals shown. Even where p resented unrounded, reported data are thought to be accurate to no more than three significant digits. Data are from a variety of source s, including the

5 

### Data for 2006–08 are for gray cement only; white cement output was likely to have been an additional 50,000 to 100,000 tons per year.
6 

### Not included in Serbia data.

7 

### Cement sales from Cimentos de Moçambique SARL (Sociedade Anónima de Responsabilidade Limitada) only.
8 

### Philippines reports cement production, in bags: 2006—300,822,821; 2007—334,228,355; 2008—378,214,634; 2009—371,628,730; and 2010—375,000,000 (estimated).

9 

### Excludes Kosovo data. European Cement Association.

2 

### Table includes data available through July 23, 2011. Data may include clinker exports for some countries.
3 

### Reported figure.

4 

### Data are for fiscal year ending March 31 of the following year. TABLE 22—Continued

e 

### Estimated. p 

### Preliminary. r 

### Revised. -- Zero. HYDRAULIC CEMENT: WORLD PRODUCTION, BY COUNTRY 1, 2



### (Thousand metric tons)