### Contents

Introduction and Acknowledgments

......................................................... iv

Aluminum

............................................................................ 1 Antimony

............................................................................ 5

Arsenic

.............................................................................. 7 Beryllium

............................................................................ 9

Bismuth

............................................................................. 13

Cadmium

............................................................................ 17

Calcium

............................................................................. 21

Cesium

.............................................................................. 23

Chromium

........................................................................... 25

Cobalt

.............................................................................. 31 Columbium (Niobium)

................................................................... 35 Copper

.............................................................................. 39

Gallium

............................................................................. 43

Germanium

........................................................................... 45

Gold

................................................................................ 49

Hafnium

............................................................................. 55

Indium

.............................................................................. 57

Iron and Steel

......................................................................... 61 Iron and Steel Scrap

.................................................................... 65

Iron Ore

............................................................................. 69

Lead

............................................................................... 73

Lithium

............................................................................. 77 Magnesium

........................................................................... 79 Manganese

........................................................................... 83 Mercury

............................................................................. 87 Molybdenum

......................................................................... 89

Nickel

.............................................................................. 91 Platinum-Group Metals (Platinum, Palladium, Iridium, Osmium, Rhodium, and Ruthenium)

................. 99 Rare-Earth Metals (Cerium, Dysprosium, Erbium, Europium, Gadolinium, Holmium, Lanthanum, Lutetium, Neodymium, Praseodymium, Promethium, Samarium, Scandium, Terbium, Thulium, Ytterbium, and Yttrium) 109

Rhenium

............................................................................. 127

Rubidium

............................................................................ 129

Selenium

............................................................................ 131

Silicon

.............................................................................. 135

Silver

............................................................................... 139

Tantalum

............................................................................ 143

Tellurium

............................................................................ 147

Thallium

............................................................................. 151

Thorium

............................................................................. 155

Tin

................................................................................. 159

Titanium

............................................................................. 161 Tungsten

............................................................................ 165

Vanadium

............................................................................ 169

Zinc

................................................................................ 171

Zirconium

............................................................................ 175 Appendix—Price Deflators, 1959-98

......................................................... 179iv 

### Introduction and Acknowledgments

The purpose of this publication is to make an extended price history for a wide range of metals available in a single document.

Such information can be useful for the analysis of mineral commodity issues, as well as for other purposes. The chapter for each

mineral commodity includes a graph of annual current and constant dollar prices for 1959 through 1998, where available; a list of significant events that affected prices; a brief discussion of the metal and its history; and one or more tables that list current dollar prices. In some cases, the “metal prices” presented herein are for some alternative form of an element or, instead of a price, a value,

such as the Customs value for an import as appraised by the U.S. Customs Service. Also included are prices for steel, steel scrap, and iron ore—steel because of its importance to the elements used to alloy with it and steel scrap and iron ore because

of their use in steelmaking. A few minor metals, such as potassium, sodium, and strontium, for which the price histories were insufficient, were excluded.

The annual prices given may be averages for the year, yearend prices, or some other price as appropriate for a particular commodity. Certain trade journals have been the source of much of this price information—American Metal Market, Chemical Market Reporter, Engineering and Mining Journal, Industrial Minerals, Metal Bulletin, Mining Journal, Platt’s Metals Week,

Roskill Information Services Ltd. commodity reports, and Ryan’s Notes. Some of these have issued annual price compilations

or booklets. Price information also is available in such publications of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the former U.S.

Bureau of Mines (USBM) as Minerals Yearbook, Mineral Industry Surveys, Mineral Commodity Summaries, and Mineral Facts

and Problems. In addition to the prices themselves, these journals and publications contain information relevant to price that has been helpful in the preparation of this publication. Prices in this report have been recast in 1992 constant dollars to show the effects of inflation as measured by the Bureau of

Labor Statistics’ Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, a widely used measure of overall inflation in the United States. These prices are not tabulated, but a table of the deflators used is given as an appendix. Constant dollar prices can be used to

show how prices have kept pace with inflation. If, over time, prices do not increase as fast or faster than the rate of inflation, then prices that producers receive will have less purchasing power. An example of different rates of growth can be seen in the

current and 1992 dollar prices of copper. U.S. copper prices increased at an average annual rate of 4.4% between 1970 and 1997, but when recast in 1992 dollars, they declined at an average annual rate of -1.0%. This publication is an update and revision of a 1993 publication by the USBM, Metal Prices in the United States Through

1991. Copies of the 1993 publication, which presented more background information and price history than the present publication, may be ordered from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS); the NTIS order number is PB97- 120794INZ. Historical information on U.S. prices for a more-limited group of metals also can be found in other publications, such as Potter and Christy (1962) and Manthy (1978). The individual chapters in this publication were prepared by mineral commodity specialists in the USGS and edited by Janet

Sachs. Micheal George prepared the tables and graphs. George Swisko provided guidance on price indices. Layout was done by Georgetta Russell, and the cover was designed by Sherry Musick.

References Cited

Manthy, R.S., 1978, Natural resource commodities—A century of statistics—Prices, output, consumptio n, foreign trade, and employment in the United States, 1870-1973: Baltimore, MD, Johns Hopkins University Press, 240 p. Potter, Neal, and Christy, F.T., Jr., 1962, Trends in natural resource commodities—Statistics of prices, output, consumption, foreign trade, and employment in the United States, 1870-1957: Baltimore, MD, The Johns Hopkins Press, 568 p.1 

### Annual Average Primary Aluminum Price

(Dollars per pound)

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars

Current dollars 

# Al

Aluminum

by Patricia A. Plunkert

Significant events affecting aluminum prices since 1958

1971-74 Price controls

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

1986-88 Worldwide supply shortages

1991 Dissolution of the Soviet Union

Aluminum metal was first isolated by Hans Christian Oersted in 1825. As late as the early 1880’s, it was

considered to be a semiprecious metal and was sold in troyounce quantities; the retail pri ce of aluminum metal was reported to b e higher than that of silver. A commercially

viable large-scale production method had yet to be developed.

Domestic productio n levels during this period were in the 1,000- to 3,000-troy-ounce range, and many uses were considered to be experimental (Mining Engineering, 1987). In 1886, formal patent applications were file d for the electrolytic reduction process for aluminum. This process, which came to be known as the Hall-Heroult process, led to
the mass commercial production of aluminum metal. As the

process was developed and ref i ned, production levels increased rapidly. By 1895, domestic production levels had reached 1 million pounds. As production levels continued to increase, domestic producers kept the price of aluminum low

to encourage its use by consumers. In the early 1900’s, they2 held aluminum metal prices at a low steady level to compete against copper in the electrical industry (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1956, p. II.1-II.4). With the outbreak of World War I in Europe in 1914,

s hortages of aluminum metal began to appear, and prices began to rise dramatically because of the increased demand for aluminum in war materials, which included airplanes and

munitions. In March 1918, the President imposed price

controls on aluminum metal, and the use of aluminum for military equipment and essential civ ilian needs was placed under Government regulation (Hill, 1921).

The 1920’s saw the demand for aluminum metal

e xpanding, especially in the growing domestic automob ile industry. The advent of the Great Depression, however, brought about a general decrease in demand for aluminum in

all sectors of the economy, especially in the automobile and

aircraft industries.

In 1939, the production and consump tion of aluminum shattered all previous records, enhanced by the preparations

for national defense and the expanding conflicts in Europe and

Asia. The aviation industry alone consumed twice the quantity of aluminum as in 1937, the previous peak year. In 1940, producers lowered the price for aluminum to give the

metal a better price relation to competing materials. During

the war years, aluminum prices were placed under formal

co ntrol and held at $0.15 per pound (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1956, p. IV.6).

After the war, the aluminum industry benefit ed from its

p rice advantage over copper and other nonferrous meta ls. Aluminum, which was cheaper and more readily available

than some other metals, wa s used in new applications and

made substantial i

nroads in the construction and transportation industries.

Rearmament programs during the Korean conflict increased

the demand for alum inum. In 1951, the allocation of

aluminum supplies and the price of aluminum metal were again placed under Government control (Blue, 1954, p. 137- 138). At the end of the conflict, domestic aluminum producers began an aggressive program to develop civilian

uses for aluminum metal.

Durin g the 1960’s, aluminum prices remained relatively

stable in th e low- to mid-$0.20-per-pound range. Capacity

increases were able to keep pace with the continuous growth in demand during this period. In the early 1970’s, the price for aluminum, as well as for other metals, was controlled by the Cost of Living Council in

an attempt to check inf lation. As these controls were gradually removed during 1974, prices ros e to reflect the increased cost of energy brought about by the surge in world oil prices. In the late 1970’s and throughout the 1980’s, aluminum prices, for the most part, reflected the law o f supply and

demand. During the early 1980’s, the aluminum industry

suffered from a period of oversupply, high inventories, excess capacity, and weak demand, causing aluminum prices to

t umble. By 1986, however, excess capacity had been permanently closed, inventories were low, and the worldwide demand for aluminum made a dramatic surge upward. This extremely tight supply-demand situation, whic h continued throughout 1987 and 1988, brought about a dramatic increase in aluminum prices. During the 1990’s, however, the speculative effect of the

futures market began to exert its presence on a l uminum prices. Prices were not only reacting to the laws of supply

and demand, but also to the perceived direction of the market as reflected on the futures exchanges.

In th e early 1990’s, the major influence on aluminum prices was the dissolution of the Soviet Union. To generate

hard currency, large quantities of Russian aluminum ingot

e ntered the world market. Unfortunately, the alumi num market had just entered an economic d ownturn and was

unable to absorb the Russian material. This period of oversupply, decreasing demand, and increa s ing inventories depressed world aluminum prices. By the mid-1990’s, production c utbacks, increased demand, declining inventor ies, and the perceived improvement in the world market led to a dramatic rebound in aluminum prices. Prices began to cycle downward again during the late 1990's as the eco nomic crisis in the Asian

market exerted pressure on the prices of several commodities, including aluminum. Once again, the aluminum market was entering a period of ove r supply. The perceived downward

influences of the Asian crisis, however, may have hastened

the decline in prices before the actua l oversupply condition occurred in the marketplace.

References Cited

Blue, Delwin, 1954, Aluminum, in Minerals Yearbook 1951, v. I: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 128-150. Hill, J.M., 1921, Bauxite and aluminum, in Metals, pt. I of

Mineral resources of the United States 1918: U.S. Geological Survey, p. 513-526. Mining Engineering, 1987, Aluminum—The first 100 years and

a look to the future: Mining Engineering, v. 39, no. 3, March, p. 178-180.

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

Aluminum: Compiled by the U.S. Department of Commerce for the Office of Defense Mobilization, 320 p.3 Annual Average Primary Aluminum Price

(Dollars per pound 1 )

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1850 17.00 1888 NA 1926 0.270 1964 0.237

1851 NA 1889 NA 1927 0.254 1965 0.245

1852 NA 1890 NA 1928 0.243 1966 0.245

1853 NA 1891 NA 1929 0.243 1967 0.250

1854 NA 1892 NA 1930 0.238 1968 0.256

1855 NA 1893 NA 1931 0.233 1969 0.272

1856 NA 1894 NA 1932 0.233 1970 0.287

1857 NA 1895 0.587 1933 0.233 1971 0.290

1858 NA 1896 0.507 1934 0.234 1972 0.250

1859 NA 1897 0.390 1935 0.200 1973 0.264

1860 NA 1898 0.306 1936 0.205 1974 0.431

1861 NA 1899 0.327 1937 0.199 1975 0.348

1862 NA 1900 0.327 1938 0.200 1976 0.412

1863 NA 1901 0.330 1939 0.200 1977 0.478

1864 NA 1902 0.330 1940 0.187 1978 0.510

1865 NA 1903 0.330 1941 0.165 1979 0.707

1866 NA 1904 0.350 1942 0.150 1980 0.761

1867 NA 1905 0.350 1943 0.150 1981 0.598

1868 NA 1906 0.358 1944 0.150 1982 0.468

1869 NA 1907 0.450 1945 0.150 1983 0.683

1870 NA 1908 0.287 1946 0.150 1984 0.611

1871 NA 1909 0.220 1947 0.150 1985 0.488

1872 9.00 1910 0.223 1948 0.157 1986 0.559

1873 NA 1911 0.201 1949 0.170 1987 0.723

1874 NA 1912 0.220 1950 0.177 1988 1.101

1875 NA 1913 0.236 1951 0.190 1989 0.878

1876 NA 1914 0.186 1952 0.194 1990 0.740

1877 NA 1915 0.340 1953 0.209 1991 0.595

1878 NA 1916 0.607 1954 0.218 1992 0.575

1879 NA 1917 0.516 1955 0.237 1993 0.533

1880 NA 1918 0.335 1956 0.240 1994 0.712

1881 NA 1919 0.321 1957 0.254 1995 0.859

1882 NA 1920 0.327 1958 0.248 1996 0.713

1883 NA 1921 0.221 1959 0.247 1997 0.771

1884 NA 1922 0.187 1960 0.260 1998 0.655

1885 NA 1923 0.254 1961 0.255

1886 NA 1924 0.270 1962 0.239

1887 8.00 1925 0.272 1963 0.226

NA Not available

1 To convert to dollars per metric ton, multiply by 2,204.62.

Note:
1850-94, in

U.S. Geological Survey Minerals Yearbooks and predecessor volumes. 1895-98, 98%-pure aluminum, in American Bureau of Metal Statistics. 1899-1900, 99%-pure aluminum ingot, in American Bureau of Metal Statistics. 1901-04, 99.75%-pure aluminum ingots in 2,000-pound lots, in American Bureau of Metal Statistics. 1905, 99.75%-pure aluminum ingots in 2,000-pound lots, in American Metal Market/Metal Statistics, 1955. 1906-19, 99%-pure No. 1 aluminum ingots, in American Metal Market/Metal Statistics, 1955. 1920-21, 98%- to 99%-pure aluminum, in American Metal Market/Metal Statistics, 1955. 1922-28, 98%-pure aluminum metal, in American Metal Market/Metal Statistics, 1955. 1929-35, 99%-pure aluminum metal, in American Metal Market/Metal Statistics, 1955. 1936-54, 99%-plus pure aluminum virgin ingot, in American Metal Market/ Metal Statistics, 1955. 1955-56, 99%-pure aluminum virgin ingot, in Engineering & Mining Journal. 1957-71, 99.5%-pure unalloyed aluminum ingot, in Engineering & Mining Journal. 1972, 99.5%-pure unalloyed aluminum ingot, in Metals Week. 1973-82, U.S. market spot price, in Metals Week. 1983-92, 99.7%-pure aluminum ingot, U.S. market spot price, in Metals Week. 1993-98, 99.7%-pure aluminum ingot, U.S. market spot price, in Platt’s Metals Week.(This page intentionally left blank.)5 

## Annual Average Antimony Price (Dollars per pound)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars

Current dollars 

# Sb Antimony

by James F. Carlin, Jr.

Significant events affecting antimony prices since 1958

1970 High demand and short supply worldwide, resulting in a price spike

1974 High demand and short supply from China, resulting in a price spike

1994-95 Severe short supply from China, resulting in a price spike

Antimony metal accounts for only a small fraction of the antimony consumed in the United S tates. It is used for a variety of alloys, including those in lead-acid storage batteries

and in special sol

d ers for joining pipes that carry potable

water. Domestically, most antimony is converted to antimony trioxide, which is primarily consumed in the flame-retardant industry, finding application in such uses as children’s clothing

and aircraft seats. The major producers, in order of importance, are China, Bolivia, Russia, and Sou th Africa. During the past 40 years, antimony has been subject to a few periods of extreme price swings. Generally, these have been

the result of spikes or declines in the American and/or foreign demand for antimony or changes in the pattern of the world production—w h ere supply disruptions in any of the major producing countries can cause a marked price change. In 1970, a combination of high worldwide demand and short supply from a few countries caused a considerable price spike

in the early part of that year; the price qu i ckly subsided by yearend. In 1974, sharply increased demand, especially for antimony trioxide , and supply disruptions from China6 combined to produce the highest antimony price recorded up

to that time. During the next 20 years, prices generally

subsided. By 1994, China had clearly emerged as t he predominant world antimony producer . That year and the following year, severe flooding in the antimony mining regions of China produced major supply dislocations that caused the price to triple within 2 years (Roskill Information Services Ltd., 1997, p. 172-179). After 1995, the price fell steadily to a level, in 1998, that had not been seen in 25 years.

Reference Cited

Rosk i ll Information Services Ltd., 1997, The economics of antimony: London, Roskill Information Services Ltd., 184 p.

Annual Average Antimony Price (Dollars per pound 1 )

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1900 0.095 1925 0.175 1950 0.290 1975 1.770

1901 0.082 1926 0.159 1951 0.440 1976 1.650

1902 0.061 1927 0.123 1952 0.440 1977 1.780

1903 0.060 1928 0.103 1953 0.360 1978 1.150

1904 0.064 1929 0.089 1954 0.310 1979 1.410

1905 0.102 1930 0.077 1955 0.320 1980 1.510

1906 0.217 1931 0.067 1956 0.360 1981 1.360

1907 0.148 1932 0.056 1957 0.350 1982 1.070

1908 0.080 1933 0.065 1958 0.320 1983 0.910

1909 0.075 1934 0.089 1959 0.310 1984 1.510

1910 0.074 1935 0.136 1960 0.310 1985 1.310

1911 0.075 1936 0.122 1961 0.340 1986 1.220

1912 0.078 1937 0.154 1962 0.350 1987 1.110

1913 0.075 1938 0.124 1963 0.350 1988 1.040

1914 0.088 1939 0.124 1964 0.420 1989 0.940

1915 0.303 1940 0.140 1965 0.460 1990 0.820

1916 0.254 1941 0.140 1966 0.460 1991 0.820

1917 0.207 1942 0.156 1967 0.460 1992 0.790

1918 0.126 1943 0.159 1968 0.460 1993 0.770

1919 0.082 1944 0.158 1969 0.580 1994 1.780

1920 0.085 1945 0.160 1970 1.440 1995 2.280

1921 0.050 1946 0.170 1971 0.710 1996 1.470

1922 0.054 1947 0.340 1972 0.590 1997 0.980

1923 0.078 1948 0.370 1973 0.690 1998 0.718

1924 0.108 1949 0.390 1974 1.820

1 To convert to dollars per metric ton, multiply by 2,204.62.

Note: 1900-36, New York dealer price for 99.30%- to 99.50%-pure antimony, in Engineering and Mining Journal. 1937-66, New York dealer price for 99.30%- to 99.50%-pure antimony, in E&MJ Metal and Mineral Markets. 1967-81, New York dealer price for 99.30%- to 99.50%-pure antimony, in Metals Week. 1982-93, New York dealer price for 99.50%- to 99.60%-pure antimony, in Metals Week [through June 14, 1993]. 1993-98, New York dealer price for 99.50%- to 99.60%-pure antimony, in Platt’s Metals Week.7 

### Yearend Arsenic Metal Price (Dollars per pound)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars

Current dollars 

# As

Arsenic

by Robert G. Reese, Jr.

Significant events affecting arsenic prices since 1958

1972-74 Consumption in lead-acid batteries growing; domestic production resumes in 1974

Mid-1970’s Hearings on effects of arsenic on health and environment

1980 Contraction in production capacity as plants that do not meet health and environmental standards are closed

1986 Domestic production ceases

A widely distributed element, arsenic is often found

associated with various nonferrous metal ores. Although not

a producer at present, historically, the United States has produced arsenic. The first domestic production, which was

a byproduct of the smelting of gold and silver ores, came near the beginning of the 20 th century (Greenspoon, 1976, p. 99).

Most of the arsenic used domestically is consumed as the

trioxi d e, mainly in the manufacture of preservatives for pressure-treated wood but also in the manufacture of herbicides. The amount of arsenic consumed as metal domestically is very small, accounting for probably less than

3% of total arsenic demand. The major end uses for arsenic metal are as minor additives in nonferrous metal alloys, principally lead alloys used in lead-acid storage batteries and certain copper alloys. During the early 1970’s, demand for arseni c metal was growing, mainly in response to the increased use of the metal

in the grids of lead-acid batteries. In the mid-1970’s, the price8 stabilized. During this time, however, the United States and other

countries b egan hearings on the health and environmental impacts of arsenic exposure. During the late 1970’s, various

domestic and foreign regulations related to arsenic exposure and emissions were adopted. The arsenic metal price peaked

in 1980 as world producers raised their prices partly to compensate for the cost of modernizing their plants and partly in

response to the elim ination of some capacity by producers unable or unwilling to modernize their plants. After 1980, induced by an ample supply and a static or possibly declining demand, the arsenic metal p rice began a long decline. Domestically produced metal was unavailable

after 1986, and China became the sole world source of metal.

Reference Cited

Greenspoon, G.N., 1976, Arsenic, in Mineral facts and problems: U.S. Bureau of Mines Bulletin 667, p. 99-106.

Yearend Arsenic Metal Price 1 (Dollars per pound 2 )

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1959 0.50 1969 0.56 1979 1.90 1989 NA

1960 0.50 1970 0.64 1980 3.00 1990 NA

1961 0.50 1971 0.64 1981 2.75 1991 NA

1962 0.50 1972 0.75 1982 2.45 1992 0.73

1963 0.50 1973 0.98 1983 2.25 1993 0.53

1964 0.50 1974 1.91 1984 2.10 1994 0.90

1965 0.56 1975 1.60 1985 2.10 1995 0.70

1966 0.56 1976 1.75 1986 1.85 1996 0.58

1967 0.48 1977 1.90 1987 NA 1997 0.45

1968 0.56 1978 1.90 1988 NA 1998 0.46

NA Not available.

1 Prices are rounded to the nearest whole cent. Prices are shown as midpoints in a range where appropriate.

2 To convert to dollars per metric ton, multiply by 2,204.62.

Note: 1959-74, London prices for 99.5%-pure metal, in Metal Bulletin. 1975-86, U.S. producer prices for 99%- to 99.5%-pure metal, in Metals Week. 1992-98, London prices for minimum 99%-pure metal, in Metal Bulletin.9 

### Yearend Average Beryllium Metal Price

(Dollars per pound)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars

Current dollars 

# Be Beryllium

by Larry D. Cunningham

Significant events affecting beryllium prices since 1958

1969 Bertrandite mine established in the United States providing a significant raw materials source

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

standards results in increased prices

1979 Beryllium metal price set by one producer

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

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

1991 Recession, dissolution of the Soviet Union

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

the highest melting points of any light metal. Beryllium has physical and chemical properties, such as its stiffness, high

resistance to corrosion from acids, and high thermal conductivity, that make it useful for various applications in its

allo y, oxide, and metallic forms. Beryllium metal is used principally in aerospace and defense applications because of

its stiffness, light weight, and dimensional stability over a wide temperature range. Beryllium-copper alloys are used in a

wide variety of applications because of their electrical and

thermal conductivity, high strength and hardness, good

corrosion and fatigue resistance, and nonmagnetic properties. Beryllium oxide

is an excellent heat conductor, with high strength and hardness, and acts as an elect rical insulator in

some applications. The United States, one of only three

countries that proces s beryllium ores and concentrates into10 beryllium products, supplies most of the rest of the world with

these products (Cunningham, 1997). Because of its use in aerospace and defense applications, beryllium is classified as

“critical and strategic,” and over the years, various beryllium materials have been purchased for the NDS. Steel, titanium, phosphor bronze, and aluminum nitride can be substituted for beryllium in some applications but usually at a performance penalty. The quoted price for beryllium metal during most of

the 1980’s and 1990’s, as presented in the table and graph, may not reflect true transaction prices for the material. The quoted prices reflect the more high-end/high-purity form of

the material. In 1956, the Atomic Energy Commission awarded 5-year

contracts to two domestic companies for each to produce

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

1958 ). Beryllium metal was also considered for aircraft

structural compon ents and components in inertial guidance

systems for advanced missiles. These new applications

increased beryllium

metal demand, which led to improvements in beryllium processing and a reduction in price.

Prior to 1970, the United States was nearly 100% import dependent for its beryl ore needs. In 1969, however, a bertrandite mine opened in Utah that provided a large secure

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

remained stable. By 1977 and continuing through the 1990’s, the effects of

inflation rates and rising operating costs were reflected in

increased beryllium prices. Energy requirements for producing beryllium metal are high. Processing requires the

use of induct ion furnaces that consume large quantities of

energy. Also, because of the toxic nature of beryllium, the industry must maintain careful control ove r the quantity of beryllium dust and fumes in the workplace. Under the Clean

Air Act, th e U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issues

standards for certain hazardous air pollutants, including

b eryllium, and the Occupational Safety and Health Adm inistration issues standards for airborne beryllium particles. To comply with these standards, plants are required to install and

maintain pollution control equipment. Beryllium dust and

fumes have been recognize d as the cause of beryllosis, a

serious chronic lung disease. Although the exact cause of the

disease is uncertain, the problem appears to be controlled

when establish ed preventative measures are exercised. In beryllium-processing plants, harmful effects are prevented by maintaining clean workplaces; requiring the use of safety equipment, such as pers onal respirators; collection of dust, fumes, and mists at the source of deposition in dust collectors;

medical pro grams; and other procedures to provide safe working conditions (Rossman, Pre uss, and Powers, 1991;
Kramer, 1994). This control of potential health hazards adds

to the cost of beryllium metal and other beryllium products.

The additional costs are ultimately passed on to the consumer in the form of increased prices.

In 1979, one of two dom estic beryllium producers discontinued beryllium metal production, leaving the price of

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

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

metal was delivered to the NDS by yearend 1989 (Kramer, 1990). The average unit value for the NDS metal was about $317 per pound. The quoted price for beryllium metal powder at yearend 1988 and yearend 1989 was $244 per pound and $261 per pound, respectively. In 1990, the Defense Logistics Agency awarded a contract to convert some of the beryl ore

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

The contract was extended through 1992 for a combined total

of 73 t of beryll ium metal, valued at about $46 million,

recovered from about 2,940 t of NDS beryl ore (Kramer, 1993, 1994). The overall unit value of the NDS metal, about $287 per pound, was comparable to the price being quoted

for be ryllium metal powder from yearend 1990 to yearend 1994, which ranged from $269 per pound to $295 per pound.

Deliveries of the metal to the NDS were completed in the second quarter of 1994.

The beryllium meta l purchase and beryl ore conversion

came at a time of declining beryllium metal consumption, caused by reduced spending for strategic defense programs.

The jump in price in 1995, shown in the graph, reflects a change in the nature of the price quotation, no t any single

causal event. Beryllium metal currently averages about 10%

of annual U.S. beryllium demand compared with about 20%

in the early 1990’s. With applications primarily in the

aerospace and defense sectors, the dissolution of the U.S.S.R. in 1991 contributed most to the decline in beryllium metal

demand as defense strategic plans chan g ed. The sole U.S. beryllium metal producer, however, continues t o develop

purer metal with improved physical properties for its

customers.
The major end use for beryllium—in beryllium -copper alloys for springs, connectors, and switches for use in such application s as automobiles, aerospace, and computers—

averages about 75% of total annual U.S. consumption of beryllium on a beryllium metal equivalent basis. For comparison purposes with metal, the quoted price for beryllium-copper master alloy (BCMA) has remained unchanged since August 1987 at $160 per pound of contained beryllium. In 1998, the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD)

initiated the sale of BCMA from the NDS. From May through November, the DOD sold about 1,190 t of BCMA

valued at a bout $6.71 million (Defense National Stockpile
Center, 1998a, b, c). The overall unit price for the BCMA sales was about $2.55 per pound.

References Cited

Cunningham, L.D., 1998, Beryllium—1997 annual review: U.S. Geological Survey Mineral Industry Surveys, July, 7 p. Eilertsen, D.E., 1958, Beryllium, in Minerals Yearbook 1956, v. I: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 253-258.11 Kramer, D.A., 1990, Beryllium, in Minerals Yearbook 1988, v. I: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 165-175.
———1993, Beryllium in 1992—Annual review: U.S. Bureau of Mines Mineral Industry Surveys, April, 7 p.
———1994, Beryllium in 1993—Annual review: U.S. Bureau of Mines Mineral Industry Surveys, April, 7 p. ———1994, Beryllium, in Minerals Yearbook 1994, v. I: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 105-110.

D efense National Stockpile Center, 1998a, Stockpile accepts bery llium copper master alloy offer: Fort Belvoir, VA,

Defense National Stockpile Center news release, May 11, 1 p.

———1998b, Stockpile accepts beryllium copper master alloy offer: Fort Belvoir, VA, Defense National Stockpile Center news release, September 18, 1 p. ———1998c, Stockpile accepts beryllium copper master alloy

offer: Fort Belvoir, VA, Defense National Stockpile Center news release, November 24, 1 p. Petkof, Benjamin, 1980, Beryllium, in Minerals Yearbook 1978- 79, v. I: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 111-114. ———1985, Berylli um, in Mineral facts and problems: U.S. Bureau of Mines Bulletin 675, p. 75-82.
Rossman, M.D.

, MD, Preuss, O.P., MD, and Powers, M.B., 1991, Beryllium—Biomedical and environmental aspects: Baltimore, MD, Williams & Wilkins, 319 p.

Yearend Average Beryllium Metal Price

(Dollars per pound 1 )

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1947 95.00 1960 70.00 1973 49.00 1986 204.00

1948 95.00 1961 54.00 1974 59.75 1987 229.00

1949 95.00 1962 54.00 1975 59.50 1988 244.00

1950 95.00 1963 54.00 1976 59.50 1989 261.00

1951 95.00 1964 54.00 1977 96.00 1990 269.00

1952 95.00 1965 54.00 1978 103.00 1991 280.00

1953 71.50 1966 54.00 1979 103.00 1992 280.00

1954 71.50 1967 54.00 1980 120.00 1993 295.00

1955 71.50 1968 54.00 1981 148.00 1994 295.00

1956 71.50 1969 60.00 1982 166.00 1995 385.00

1957 71.50 1970 60.00 1983 178.00 1996 385.00

1958 71.50 1971 60.00 1984 178.00 1997 385.00

1959 71.50 1972 60.00 1985 196.00 1998 385.00

1 To convert to dollars per kilogram, multiply by 2.20462.

Note: 1947-52, beryllium, technical grade, in E&MJ Metal and Mineral Markets. 1953-59, beryllium, lumps and beads, 97% beryllium, in American Metal Market (AMM). 1960-68, beryllium, powder or powder blend, 97% beryllium, in AMM. 1969-80, beryllium, powder or powder blend, in U.S. Bureau of Mines, Minerals Yearbook, origin and/or beryllium content unknown. 1981-85, beryllium, powder blend, 97% beryllium, in AMM. 1986-89, beryllium, powder blend, 98.5% beryllium, provided by Brush Wellman, Inc. 1990-94, beryllium, powder blend, 98.5% beryllium, in AMM. 1995-98, beryllium, powder, 99% beryllium, in AMM.(This page intentionally left blank.)13 

### Annual Average Bismuth Price (Dollars per pound)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars

Current dollars 

# Bi

Bismuth

by Robert D. Brown, Jr.

Significant events affecting bismuth prices since 1958

1959-64 Prices set by producers

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

all-time high

1975-81 World production grew faster than consumption

1980 Bolivia ceased production, ASARCO Incorporated suspended producer price

1980-82 Economic recessions

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

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

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

imports, large world stocks, impending releases from Government stockpiles, and dealer reaction, caused the price to drop, in spite of bismuth's increasing potential for replacing lead in environmentally sensitive applications

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

from 990 to 480 metric tons, began selling the excess bismuth

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

1996 Amendments to 1986 Safe Drinking Water Act; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service gave final approval to Bi97%-Sn shot

for waterfowl hunting; Asarco announced impending closure of the Omaha, NE, plant (the sole producer of primary bismuth in the United States)

1997 Omaha plant closed in June, the NDS exhausted its supply of bismuth in November

1998-99 Low prices reduced bismuth to coproduct status with gold, copper, and tungsten at the Tasna Mine in Bolivia and

delayed reopening14

Demand for bismuth in the United States was small prior to World War II. The chief use was for medicines; bismuth compound s were used to treat such conditions as digestive disorders, venereal diseases, and burns. Minor amounts of

bismuth were consumed in fusible alloys for fir e sprinkler

systems and fuse wire. Bismuth has always been produced mainly as a byproduct of lead refining. The price, which was

controlle d by the major producers until the mid-1960’s, usually reflected th e cost of recovery. In World War II, bismuth, considered to be a strategic and critical material, was used for solders, fusible alloys, and medications and in atomic

research. To stabilize the market, the producers set the price

at $1.25 per pound during the war and at $2.25 per po und from 1950 until 1964 (U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1966).

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

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

combined with increased c onsumption in other categories,

caused the producer price to increase dramatically in 1974 to

a peak of $ 12.00 per pound in June. By August, the price dropped back to $9.00 per pound and remained there through

the rest of the year. For the complete year 1974, the 21%

decrease in domestic demand affected a ll categories of consumption (Wyche, 1976).

This was followed by 7-yea r decline in prices owing to

increased world production with little growth in consumption. Asarco, the only domestic producer, suspended its list price

on October 1, 1980. Until then, the annual average price

re ported was the Asarco price for 99.99%-pure bismuth. After 1980, the New York dealer price was reported (Carlin, 1981). In Bolivia, the only country where bismuth was mined as

a principal product, it was not possible to make a profit at the lower prices, and production virtually ceased in 1980 (Metal Bulletin, 1982). During the recessions of 1980 and 1981-82, declining domestic consumption and an excess of stocks held by world producers caused the price to drop to a low of $1.30 per pound in January 1983.

In 1984, the price began to climb as consumption increased worldwide, especially in the United States and Japan. In 1988,

a series of miners’ s trikes in Peru, one of the largest producers of bismuth in the world, cut off all shipments for

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

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

domestic consumers were able to compensate for this loss by obtaining bismuth elsewhere. In late 1989, the price of bismuth began to drop owing to

lower consumption, i

ncreased imports, large world stocks,

and dealer reaction to the plan to sell 510 tons of the bismuth

in the NDS within 10 years (American Metal Market, 1990).

The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) sold more than 59 tons
from the NDS in 1990 and more than 57 tons in 1991. U.S. imports also increas ed in 1989 and 1990, which further

increased the supply of bismuth and helped keep the price near $3.00 per pound. In 1992, the DLA released 91 tons of

bismuth from the NDS and announced a new plan to release the remaining 740 tons during a period of 10 years (Jasinski, 1993).

In the early 1990’s, research b egan on the evaluation of

bismuth as a nontoxic replacem ent for lead in such uses as

ceramic glazes, fishing sinkers, food-processing eq uipment ( Murray, 1993), free-machining brasses for plum bing applications (Feder, 1991), lubricating greases, and shot for

waterfowl hunting (Lowry, 1993). During the middle 1990’s, growth in these areas remained slow in spite of direct or indirect Gover n

ment backing of bismuth for lead replacement.

The 1996 Amendments to the 1986 Safe Drinking Water Act require lead-free plumbing for new installations and repairs of facilities providing potable water by August 1998. Also, the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife service gave final approval for the use of bismuth-tin shot for waterfowl hunting (U.S. Fish and

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

with local an d Nebraska State authorities on environmental remediation, Asarco closed its Omaha smelter, the only site of domestic bismuth production. Also in 1997, the DLA sold all the bismuth remaining in the NDS (American Metal Market, 1997). Thus, the United States became completely dependent on imports for its supply of primary bismuth.

At the end of the decade, total demand increased moderately as consumption for new uses, especially hunting

and plumbing appl

ications, began to increase. Supply

remained adequate and prices remained low. Owing to low prices for bismut

h, the reopening of the Tasna Mine in Bolivia, closed since 1980, was delayed. When production

starts, bismuth, copper, gold, and tungsten will be coproducts (Mining Journal, 1999). In the original plan, bismuth was to be the main product (Tice, 1997).

References Cited

American Metal Market, 1990, DLA schedules sale of bismuth: American Metal Market, v. 98, July 23, no. 142, p. 2.
———1997, DLA’s bismuth stocks empti ed: American Metal Market, v. 105, no. 218, November 10, p. 16. Carlin, J.F., Jr., 1981, Bismuth, in Minerals Yearbook 1980, v. I: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 129-132. Feder, B.J., 1991, A new form of brass, to cut lead in drinking water: New York Times, v. 140, May 15, p. C7. King, A.G., 1988, Bismuth rise caused by Peru strike: American Metal Market, v. 96, no. 155, August 9, p. 2. Jasinski, S.M., 1993, Bismuth in 1992—Annual review: U.S. Bureau of Mines Mineral Industry Surveys, 6 p. Lowry, Ed, 1993, Bismuth shot—The ballistic pote ntial: American Rifleman, v. 141, no. 9, September, p. 54-61. Metal Bulletin, 1982, Bismuth metal: Metal Bulletin Handbook 1982, v. 2, Statistics, p. 87-89. Mining Journal, 1988, Peru strike boosts bismuth: [London] Mining Journal, v. 310, no. 7953, January 29, p. 77.
———1999, Minor metals in Decem ber: [London] Mining Journal, v. 332, no. 8514, January 15, p. 27. Murray, C

. J., 1993, Bismuth alloy replaces lead, eliminates toxicity: Design News, v. 49, no. 10, May 17, p. 124-125.15 Tice, Kelley, 1997, A

mine’s tale—Taking care of bismuth: American Metal Market, v. 105, no.174, September 9, p. 1-2.

U.S. Bureau of

Mines, 1966, Bismuth, i n Commodity Data Summaries: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 16-17.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1 997, Approval of bismuth-tin shot as non-toxic for waterfowl and coots hunting: Federal Register, v. 62, no. 12, January 31, p. 4873-4876. Wyche, Charlie, 1976, Bismuth, in Minerals Yearbook 1974, v. I: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 223-227.

Annual Average Bismuth Price 1 (Dollars per pound 2 )

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1906 1.25 1930 1.35 1954 2.25 1978 3.38

1907 1.25 1931 1.25 1955 2.25 1979 3.01

1908 1.75 1932 0.85 1956 2.25 1980 2.64

1909 1.75 1933 1.08 1957 2.25 1981 2.52

1910 1.93 1934 1.20 1958 2.25 1982 1.61

1911 2.13 1935 1.05 1959 2.25 1983 1.72

1912 2.03 1936 1.00 1960 2.25 1984 4.27

1913 2.00 1937 1.00 1961 2.25 1985 5.18

1914 2.88 1938 1.05 1962 2.25 1986 3.25

1915 2.88 1939 1.10 1963 2.25 1987 3.65

1916 3.63 1940 1.25 1964 2.30 1988 5.78

1917 3.43 1941 1.25 1965 3.43 1989 5.76

1918 3.43 1942 1.25 1966 4.00 1990 3.56

1919 3.08 1943 1.25 1967 4.00 1991 3.10

1920 2.55 1944 1.25 1968 4.00 1992 2.66

1921 1.95 1945 1.25 1969 4.63 1993 2.50

1922 1.98 1946 1.44 1970 6.00 1994 3.25

1923 2.50 1947 1.98 1971 5.26 1995 3.85

1924 2.03 1948 2.00 1972 3.63 1996 3.65

1925 2.00 1949 2.00 1973 5.25 1997 3.50

1926 3.03 1950 2.06 1974 9.25 1998 3.60

1927 2.30 1951 2.25 1975 8.25

1928 1.98 1952 2.25 1976 7.50

1929 1.70 1953 2.25 1977 6.00

1 Prices for 99.99%-pure bismuth.

2 To convert to dollars per kilogram, multiply by 2.20462.

Note: 1906-23, ASARCO Incorporated, producer price, in U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Resources of the United States. 1924-31, ASARCO Incorporated, producer price in U.S. Bureau of Mines, Mineral Resources of the United States. 1932-80, ASARCO Incorporated, producer price, in U.S. Bureau of Mines, Minerals Yearbook. 1981-93, New York dealer price, in Metals Week [through June 14, 1993]. 1993-98, New York dealer price, in Platt’s Metals Week.(This page intentionally left blank.)17 

## Annual Average Cadmium Price (Dollars per pound)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars

Current dollars 

# Cd

Cadmium

by Jozef Plachy

Significant events affecting cadmium prices since 1958

1961-75 Vietnam War; price trends slowly upward

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

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

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

1982 Lowest cadmium price since end the of World War II

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

Cadmium minerals are not found in commercial quantities.

The m etal is produced as a byproduct in the recovery of primary zinc from zinc ores and also from some lead or comple x copper-lead-zinc ores. The feed material for

cadm ium production consists of fume and dust that are

collected as flue dust in baghouses during the pyrometallurgical processing of zinc and residues that result from electrolytic zinc production. The availability of cadmium is,

in m ost cases, dependent on the amount of zinc produced. Germany was the only important producer of cadmium until

World War I. Production of cadmium in the United States began in 1907. By 1917, the United States had become the

world’s leading producer and held that position for more than

50 years. During this period, the price of cadmium was18 dictated by either market forces or, during World War II and the Korean Conflict, Government-imposed regulations. The last of these regulations, enacted during the Korean Conflict, was revoked on May 15, 1952. Since that time, the price of

cadmium has been determined primarily by supply and

demand. Following the end of Government regulations, the price of

cadmium metal

fluctuated widely between 1953 and 1973, reflecting the variation in supply and demand. Domestic prices rose to world price levels in 1973 and increased to $4.09 per pound b y 1974, surpassing the European market quotations. During the next few years, the price trended slowly downward despite continuing currency inflation. By 1982, depressed by the recessions of 1980 and 1981-82, the price had dropped to the lowest level since the end of World War II—$1.11 per pound of cadmium metal. What began as a modest increase in 1986 and 1987 turned

into the largest recorded annual increase of cadmium price in

1988. By March of that year, the domestic price for a pound

of cadmium metal reached $9.10. The market was so tight in early 1998 that major producers did not have any material to
sell on the spot market and would not make any commitments

for near-term sales at a specific price. The price increase was attributed to the tight supply of cadmium, heavy speculative trading, and world labor disputes, which disrupted the supply

of cadmium metal. The supply squeeze was further affected by the purchases of

large quantities of cadmium by the

nickel-cadmium battery industry, particularly in Japan. For

the first 8 months (after which producers stopped quoting), the price averaged $7.90, a nearly 300% increase from that of

the previous year. The price fell precipitously in the following

5 years, dropping to $0.45 in 1993 (U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1993, p. 21-24). Since that year, the price for cadmium has

fluctuated between $0.28 and $1.80 per po und of metal.

Some industry analysts attribute the volatility of cadmium prices to the fact that

the price of the 95% of all cadmium

sold under long-term contracts, usually by primary zinc producers, is strongly influenced by the 5% of cadmium sold

on the spot market, which is more reflec tive of supply and

demand.

The price for cadmium in the next several years will probably be affected by the proposed ban on cad mium in

some of the major European countries, increasingly strict U.S.

environmental regulations limiting domestic use of cadmium

in all its forms, and an increased supply of primary cadmium

from z inc smelting and secondary cadmium from recycling (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 1997, p. 3-5).

References Cited

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development,
1997, OECD workshop on the eff ective collection and recycling of nickel-cadmium batteries: Lyon, France, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 30

p. U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1993, Metal prices in the United States through 1991: U.S. Bureau of Mines, 201 p.19 Annual Average Cadmium Price (Dollars per pound 1 )

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1900 0.65 1925 0.60 1950 2.17 1975 3.36

1901 0.68 1926 0.60 1951 2.55 1976 2.66

1902 0.54 1927 0.60 1952 2.23 1977 2.96

1903 0.53 1928 0.60 1953 2.00 1978 2.45

1904 0.59 1929 0.60 1954 1.70 1979 2.76

1905 0.65 1930 0.60 1955 1.70 1980 2.84

1906 0.76 1931 0.55 1956 1.70 1981 1.93

1907 1.02 1932 0.55 1957 1.70 1982 1.11

1908 0.75 1933 0.55 1958 1.52 1983 1.13

1909 0.52 1934 0.55 1959 1.36 1984 1.69

1910 0.55 1935 0.70 1960 1.52 1985 1.21

1911 0.67 1936 0.98 1961 1.68 1986 1.25

1912 0.76 1937 1.22 1962 1.72 1987 1.99

1913 0.77 1938 0.98 1963 2.26 1988 7.90

1914 0.89 1939 0.64 1964 3.00 1989 6.28

1915 1.19 1940 0.82 1965 2.58 1990 3.38

1916 1.56 1941 0.90 1966 2.42 1991 2.01

1917 1.47 1942 0.90 1967 2.64 1992 0.91

1918 1.48 1943 0.90 1968 2.65 1993 0.45

1919 1.22 1944 0.90 1969 3.27 1994 1.13

1920 1.17 1945 0.90 1970 3.57 1995 1.84

1921 0.98 1946 1.09 1971 1.92 1996 1.24

1922 1.09 1947 1.70 1972 2.56 1997 0.51

1923 0.88 1948 1.83 1973 3.64 1998 0.28

1924 0.70 1949 2.00 1974 4.09

1 To convert to dollars per kilogram, multiply by 2.20462.

Note: 1900-66, Producer price for 99.95%-pure cadmium, in Engineering & Mining Journal.
1967-93, Producer price for 99.95%-pure cadmium, in Metals Week. Major producers suspended price quotes during the last 4 months of 1988; 1988 price is January to August average. 1994-99, New York dealer price for 99.99%-pure cadmium, in Platt’s Metals Week.(This page intentionally left blank.)21 

### Annual Average Calcium Price (Dollars per pound)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars

Current dollars 

# Ca

Calcium

by M. Michael Miller

Calcium is a soft, light, silvery-white metal. It is a bivalent

element of the alkaline-earth group. The metal oxidizes

ra pidly in the presence of moisture or in dry air at a temperature above 285 

### / C. Calcium reacts readily with

water, forming hydrated li me (calcium hydroxide) and hydrogen. It melts at 845 

### / C, boils at 1,420 

### / C, and can be purified by distillation in an inert atmosphere or in a vacuum. Calcium metal is produced by an aluminothermic reduction

process that begins with high-calcium limes tone calcined to

form calcium oxide. The calcium oxide is blended with finely

divided aluminum, and the mixture is compacted into briquets.

The briquets are placed in retorts and heated in a furnace at
about 1,200 

### / C under high vacu um. The calcium oxide is reduced to calcium metal gas, which is collected in the water-cooled condenser section of the retort (Hibbins, 1992).

Calcium metal is sold on a contract basis, and the contract price may vary great l y from the published producer price.

The published prices change infrequently and serve only as a guide to the prices obtained by producers and dealers. The prices listed in the table are quoted for different quantities (see footnotes) and cannot be directly compared.

Reference Cited

Hibbins, S.G., 1992, Calcium and calcium alloys, in Kirk-Othmer encyclopedia of chemical technology (4 t h ed.): New York, John Wiley & Sons, p. 777-786.22 Annual Average Calcium Price (Dollars per pound 1 )

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1959 2.05 1969 2.00 1979 1.89 1989 3.00

1960 2.05 1970 2.00 1980 2.78 1990 2.89

1961 2.05 1971 2.00 1981 3.05 1991 2.50

1962 2.05 1972 2.00 1982 3.05 1992 2.38

1963 2.05 1973 2.00 1983 3.05 1993 2.25

1964 2.05 1974 2.00 1984 3.25 1994 2.25

1965 2.05 1975 2.00 1985 3.92 1995 2.15

1966 2.00 1976 1.33 1986 3.92 1996 2.20

1967 2.00 1977 1.49 1987 3.92 1997 2.20

1968 2.00 1978 1.80 1988 3.85 1998 NA

NA Not available

1 To convert to dollars per kilogram, multiply by 2.20462.

Note: 1959-65, metal, 97%- to 98%-pure, cast in slabs and small pieces, in more than 1-metric-ton lots, in Engineering & Mining Journal,

Metal and Mineral Markets.
1966-75, U.S. producers price, more than 99%-pure, full cr owns, in quantities of less than 100 pounds, i n Calcium and Calcium Compounds chapters in the U.S. Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook. 1976-88, metal, Ca + Mg 99.5%, Mg 0.7%, full crowns, in quantities of more than 20,000 pounds, in Metals Week. 1989-97, metal, 98% minimum, in Metal Bulletin.23 

### Annual Average Primary Cesium Price

(Dollars per gram)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars

Current dollars 

# Cs

Cesium

by Robert G. Reese, Jr.

Cesium, the most electropositive and least abundant of

the five naturally occurring alkali metals, was discovered spectroscopically in 1860 (Perel’man, 1965, p. 1). The first

cesium metal was produced in 1881. Because cesium is not
mined domestically, the United States is completely dependent on imports. Historically, the most important use

for cesium has been in research and development, primarily in chemical and electrical applications. Owing to the small size of the industry, quoted cesium prices are those of individual companies. The cesium price

varies with the purity of the material and inversely with the quantity purchased. Cesium metal has been marketed in purities ranging from 99% to 99.98%.

The annual prices presented in the graph and table may not be comparable from year to year owing to differences

in purities, quantity of material purchased, and/or the source o f the price. For example, prior to 1960, the prices published in the U.S. Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbooks

were for purchases of less than 1 pound of cesium metal. From

1960 through 1991, the ces ium metal prices published in the Yearbooks were for purchases of at least 1 pound of material

and are significantl

y lower than the pre-1960 prices owing to

disco unts for the larger quantity purchased. The prices for

1992 through 1998 represent the price charged for a 1-gram ampoule of 99.98%-pure cesium metal and are an order of magnitude higher than the 1960 to 1991 prices.

Reference Cited

Perel’man, F.M., 1965, Rubidium and caesium: New York, The Macmillan Co., 144 p.24 Annual Average Primary Cesium Price

(Dollars per gram)

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1959 2.23 1969 0.52 1979 0.50 1989 0.69

1960 1.19 1970 0.52 1980 0.50 1990 0.69

1961 0.83 1971 0.52 1981 0.50 1991 0.69

1962 0.83 1972 0.52 1982 0.66 1992 38.50

1963 0.52 1973 0.52 1983 0.66 1993 38.50

1964 0.52 1974 0.52 1984 0.66 1994 38.50

1965 0.58 1975 0.52 1985 0.72 1995 40.80

1966 NA 1976 0.52 1986 0.72 1996 40.80

1967 0.58 1977 0.66 1987 0.66 1997 43.70

1968 0.58 1978 NA 1988 0.66 1998 63.30

NA Not available

Note:

The data in the table above were compiled from information in various U.S. Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbooks, U.S. Bureau of Mines

Mineral Commodity Summaries, and U.S. G eological Survey Mineral Commodity Summaries. It is believed that the data in the previously mentioned publications were obtained from the sources listed below. 1959, Average of the prices attributed to American Potash & Chemical Corp. & Penn Rare Metals Co. 1960, 99+%-pure cesium, 10-pound lots. 1961-62, Penn Rare Metals Division, Kawecki Chemical Co., 99.9%-pure cesium, 1- to 9-pound lots. 1963-64, Average of the range of prices for 99+%-pure cesium in American Metal Market. 1965, Average of the range of prices for 99.6%-pure cesium, 1- to 9-pound lots attributed to the Penn Rare Metals Division of Kawecki

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

Chemical Co. 1969, Average of the range of prices for 99+%-pure cesium. 1970-77, Average of the range of prices for 99+%-pure cesium in American Metal Market. 1979-1981, American Metal Market yearend price for 99+%-pure cesium. 1982-86, KBI Division, Cabot Corp., average of the yearend price for technical- and high-purity-grade cesium. 1987-88, KBI Division, Cabot Corp., average of the yearend price for technical- and high-purity-grade cesium in lots of less than 50 pounds. 1989-91, KBI Division, Cabot Corp. 1992-98, Alfa Aesar and other chemical catalogs. Prices for purchases of 99.98%-pure cesium in 1-gram ampoules.25 

### Chromite Ore Value (Dollars per metric ton, gross weight)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars
Current dollars



### Ferrochromium Value (Dollars per metric ton, contained chromium)

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars

Current dollars 

# Cr

Chromium

by John F. Papp26 

### Chromium Metal Value (Dollars per metric ton, gross weight)

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars

Current dollars

Significant events affecting chromite ore prices since 1958

1987-89 Increased stainless steel production

1991 Dissolution of the Soviet Union

1997 Start of the Asian financial crisis

Chromium, the chemical element, was discovered in 1797 by Nicolas-Louis Vauquelin, a professor of chemistry at the

Paris École des Mines, one of the new European technical

universities e stablished to bring science education to the mining industry (Weeks, 1968, p. 271-283). The chromite mineral, compr ising primarily chromium, iron, and oxygen, was subsequently found to be useful as a refractory material.

Chromite was first exploited for the production of pigments (Gray, 1988) and the manufacture of refractory materials.

To day, the major use of chromium is in the metallurgical industry to make stainless steel; substantially less chromium

is used in the refractory and chemical industries (Papp, 1994,

p. 7, 17). The major chromium commodity materials are

ch romite ore, ferrochromium, and chromium metal. The major traded chromium commodity is now ferrochromium,

which replaced chromite ore. Chromium metal prices apply

to a relatively small a mount of the chromium commodity

materials. To meet the needs of different users of price information, all three price histories have been included.

An understanding of the structure of the chromium industry

is important to unders t anding chromium material price s tructure. Ferrochromium was originally produced mainly

near stainless steel producers but production has since moved

to locations in prox

imity to chromite ore producers. The

United States is not a chromite-ore-producing country; it is, however, a major world producer of stainless steel and of

chromium chemicals. After World War II, the United States

built a sto ckpile of chromium commodities for national security reasons. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Federal Government started to sell its stockpile; the price of material was based on negotiated contract. Each month, the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) , the Federal agency responsible for stockpile management, accepted bids

on chromium materials that had been authorized for sale by

the U.S. Congress (U.S. Department of Defense, 1997). The

DLA negotiated a price for the chromium material with the potential purchaser. Imports of various forms of chromium are important

because their value is a good indicator of price. Until the period from 1980 through 1990, the United States imported

most of its ch r omium needs in the form of chromite ore because ferrochromium was domestically produc ed. As27 domestic ferrochromium production capacity declined, imported ferrochromium surpassed chromite ore as the major commodity source of chromium for the United States.

Markets fo r chromium metal developed along with the jet engine, many parts of which need alloys that require

chromium metal.

The structure of the chromium industry has been changing,

as has the role of the United States in that industry. Reported

U.S. trade statistics (i.e., amount and value) for chromite ore

date back to 1884; ferrochromium, 1910; and chromium metal, 1923. Trade journal prices for chromium metal go back only to 1964. Thus, chromite ore is the only chromium commodity for which the reported historical trade journal price and U.S. import value series is long. Since U.S. import

data was first collected, technological changes have resulted

in a change in the predominant grade of chromite ore and

ferrochromium traded. The United States has been a consumer of a broad range of chromium materials, and to a large degree, prices of

chromium-containing materials have

been sustained b y demand in the United States and other

industriali zed nations. As a chromium-chemicalmanufacturing nation, the United States also imported

chromite ore for chemical production. As a steel-producing nation, the United States imported chromite ore for refractory

and alloy p roduction. Between about 1970 and 1999, the

United States made the transition from producing to importing

ferrochromium for its steel industry. As a result, U.S. import

statistics inc luded declining amounts of metallurgical grade

chromite ore over that time period. The United States is a major alloy- and stainless-steel-producing nation, and

chromium ferroalloy imports , including a broad range of grades and sources, reflect that.

Chromite ore and other chromium materials are not traded

on commodity or futures exchanges. Thus, the price for

chromite ore or any other chromium material is not publicly negotiated or availabl

e. After surveying consumers and producers, some trade journals publish a composite price or price range based on their survey. Included among these are American Metal Market, Industrial Minerals, Metal Bulletin,

Metals Price Report, Platt’s Metals Week, and Ryan’s Notes. Although the prices for chromium materials reported in such periodicals might, indeed, represent price in the market being surveyed, no representation of quantity of trade is made. Usually, more than one source and/or grade o f material reported by t he trade journals may have disparate characteristics. In this situation, price is an average and does

not apply to any specific product. A broadly descriptive name

like “chromite ore” covers many sources a nd grades of

material. The U.S. import value reported to the U.S. Customs Service, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, and published by the U.S. Bureau of

the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, includes a declared value of the imported material estimated at the point of export. It excludes U.S. import duties, freight, insurance, a nd other charges incurred in shipping the merchandise to the United States (U.S. Bureau

of the Census, 1992, p. 2-6). Chromite ore values are annual weig hted-average values based on quantity, content, and

customs valu e of imports as reported in U.S. customs

statistics.

Chromite ore is graded by its chromic oxide (Cr 2 O 3 )

content, and its price is reported in trade journals on a grossweight basis (U.S. dollars per metric ton, gross weight). Commercially traded chromite ore grades range from 35% to
55% Cr 2 O 3 . Suppose, for example, that a particular chromite

ore is graded at 42% to 45% and priced at $100 per metric

ton. It contains 42% to 45% chromic oxide and costs $100

per ton, gross weight. To calculate the cost of the chromium

contained in this material, remember that chromic oxide is

68.42% chromium. Consequently, 1 ton of this material then

contains between 0.287 and 0.308 ton of chromium yielding

a unit value of between $325 and $348 per ton of chromium.

Ferrochromium typically contains between 50% a n d 65% chromium, and its price is reported in trade journals in dollars

per p ound of contained chromium. Chromium metal is typically in excess of 99% pure, and its price is reported i n

t rade journals in dollars per pound, gross weight (Pap p
, 1995). A wide variety of chromium metal prices are reported

in trade journals. The units of chromium material value are similar to those of chromium material price reported in trade journals—dollars per metric ton, gross weight, for chromite

ore and chromium metal and dollars per metric ton of

contained chromium for ferrochromium. (To convert from

dollars per metric ton to dollars per pound, multiply by

4.536x10 -4 .)

The unit value of chromium in ea ch of its commodity

forms is substantially different. In 1997, the unit value of

chromium contained in its commodity forms was, in rounded

numbers and in units of dollars per metric ton of contained

chromium— chromite ore, $200; ferrochromium, $1 ,000; and chromium metal, $7,000. The predominant influence on the price of chromite ore is

the relation between supply and demand and general

economic conditions . Stocks relative to anticipated consumption al so affect material price. When supply does

not meet demand or when stocks appe a r to be insufficient, price is expe cted to increase. Because stainless steel is the major end use for chromium, world stainless steel production

or anticipated production plays a major role i n determining

chromi u m demand and is, therefore, a major influence on ferrochromium and chromite ore prices. Strong demand for

chromium from the inter n ational stainless steel market

resulted in price increases from 1987 through 1989.

Chromium industry production capacity growth exceeded

stainless steel industry chromiu m demand growth, which28 continued but at a rate lower than that of ferrochromium production capacity. The result was excess production capacity in the chromium ferroalloy industry that resulted in lower ferrochromium prices. In 1991, the dissolution of the

former Soviet Union (FSU) resulted in decreased demand for

chromium from those markets and added chromium products

from the FSU to world markets. Both of these events

exacerbated the downward pressure on ferrochromium prices.

In 1997, the Asian financial crisis resulted in a lower world demand for stainless steel that put more downward pressure on ferrochromium prices.

Of the 12.5 million metric tons of 1997 world chromite ore production, 85% went into the ferrochromium industry; 8%

to the chemical industry; a n d 7% to the refractory industry (Toerien, 1997; Papp, 1998, p . 8). Because nonferrochromium-grade chromite ore is often a byproduct of ferrochromium-grade ore, ferrochromium industry demand is

the main driving force of chromite ore production (O’Driscoll, 1998). The relation is indicated by the lead sometimes shown by ferrochromium price over chromite ore price . The annually averaged price data show that price pe a ks for

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

1975-76 and 1995-96. In the first two cases, annual averaging hides the price change relation. In the second two

cases, increased demand for ferrochromium drove up

ferrochromium prices, but the chromite ore price increase lagged by 1 year. The most recent ferrochromium price peaks were in June 1989 and December 1995 (Warburg

Dillon Read Securities (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd., 1998, p. 3). References Cited

Gray, Alan, 1988 , Lead chrome pigments, i n Lewis, P.A., ed., Properties a

nd economics: New York, Wiley-Interscience Publication, Pigments Handbook, v. 1, p. 315-325. O’Driscoll, Mike, 1998, Chromite supply—A quest ion of ownership: Industrial Minerals, no. 366, March, p. 51. Papp, J.F ., 1994, Chromium life cycle study: U.S. Bureau of Mines Information Circular 9411, 94 p. ———1995, Chromium metal: U.S. Bureau of Mines Information Circular 9430, 64 p.

—— —1998, Chromium in 1997—Annual review: U.S. Geological Survey Mineral Industry Surv e ys, September 27, 27 p.

Toer ien, G.P., 1997, [Untitled]: Ryan’s Notes Ferroalloys Conference, Boca Raton, FL, November 4, 1997, handout, unpaginated.

U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1992, Guide to foreign trade statistics: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 276 p.

U.S. Department of Defense, 1998, Operations under the Strategic and Critical Materials S tock Piling Act during the period October 199 6 through September 1997: U.S. Department of Defense Strategic and Critical Materials Report to the Congress, 43 p. Warburg Dillon Read Securities (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd., 1998,

South Africa, Steel & Allied, Samancor: Warburg Dillon Read Securities (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd., 67 p. Weeks, M.E., and Leichester, H.M., 1 968, Discovery of the elements (7 th ed.): Journal of Chemical Education, 896 p.

Chromite Ore Value 1 (Dollars per metric ton, gross weight)

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1940 13 1955 23 1970 25 1985 54

1941 12 1956 25 1971 27 1986 49

1942 16 1957 27 1972 29 1987 49

1943 20 1958 25 1973 25 1988 69

1944 21 1959 23 1974 29 1989 84

1945 21 1960 19 1975 53 1990 72

1946 17 1961 18 1976 61 1991 71

1947 19 1962 18 1977 57 1992 70

1948 24 1963 16 1978 55 1993 65

1949 22 1964 18 1979 60 1994 69

1950 20 1965 18 1980 63 1995 80

1951 20 1966 18 1981 61 1996 93

1952 25 1967 18 1982 65 1997 74

1953 28 1968 19 1983 60 1998 74

1954 26 1969 20 1984 56

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

customs statistics, as reported by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce. Based on U.S. chromite ore import
statistics, 1940 through 1997, average chromic oxide content plus or minus average deviation is 43.8 ± 1.5 percent; and chromium content, 30.0 ± 1.0 percent.29 Ferrochromium Value 1 (Dollars per metric ton, contained chromium)

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1947 295 1960 462 1973 392 1986 851

1948 344 1961 449 1974 600 1987 893

1949 352 1962 445 1975 1,061 1988 1,403

1950 363 1963 376 1976 916 1989 1,609

1951 411 1964 360 1977 826 1990 1,017

1952 442 1965 395 1978 686 1991 997

1953 556 1966 367 1979 945 1992 966

1954 NA 1967 394 1980 972 1993 801

1955 NA 1968 382 1981 952 1994 767

1956 484 1969 370 1982 1,008 1995 1,322

1957 516 1970 401 1983 737 1996 1,179

1958 540 1971 464 1984 833 1997 1,212

1959 512 1972 422 1985 914 1998 1,027

NA Not available

1 Weighted-average ferrochromium value based on content quantity and declared free-on-board value of U.S. imports as reported in U.S.

customs statistics, as reported by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce. Based on U.S. ferrochromium import statistics, 1947 through 1997, average chromium content plus or minus average deviation is 61.4 ± 3.7 percent.

Chromium Metal Value 1 (Dollars per metric ton, gross weight)

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1956 1,852 1967 NA 1978 NA 1989 6,597

1957 2,237 1968 1,656 1979 NA 1990 6,460

1958 2,234 1969 1,800 1980 7,682 1991 7,584

1959 1,993 1970 NA 1981 7,662 1992 6,671

1960 1,998 1971 2,003 1982 6,018 1993 6,137

1961 1,832 1972 2,206 1983 4,491 1994 6,031

1962 1,689 1973 2,491 1984 5,674 1995 6,455

1963 1,677 1974 3,030 1985 5,468 1996 7,018

1964 1,670 1975 4,486 1986 NA 1997 7,419

1965 1,661 1976 4,350 1987 5,320 1998 7,576

1966 NA 1977 4,938 1988 6,097

NA Not available

1 Weighted-average chromium metal value based on quantity and declared free-on-board value of U.S. imports as reported in U.S. customs statistics, as reported by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce. Chromium metal is typically in excess of 99%

pure.(This page intentionally left blank.)31 

### Annual Average Cobalt Price (Dollars per pound)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars

Current dollars 

# Co

Cobalt

by Kim B. Shedd

Significant events affecting cobalt prices since 1958

1967-1976 Sales of significant quantities of cobalt from U.S. Government stockpile

1978 Strong cobalt demand, Zaire’s copper-cobalt mining region invaded, and free market developed

1981-1982 Sharp recession

1984 Zaire and Zambia announce a joint producer price

1990-1991 Recession

1990 Strikes in Zaire and political unrest in Zambia, cave-in at Zaire’s Kamoto copper-cobalt mine, and Russia began

exporting cobalt to Western markets

1991 Unrest in Zaire and dissolution of the Soviet Union

1992-1993 Economic downturn and decrease in U.S. defense spending

1993-1998 Sales of cobalt from the U.S. Government stockpile

1994 Producer price was changed to a reference price

Cobalt is a strategic and critical metal used in many diverse

industrial and military applications. The largest use of cobalt

is in superalloys, which are used to make parts for gas turbine aircraft engines. In its metal and/or chemical forms, cobalt is also used to make magnets; corrosion and wear-resistant

allo y s; high-speed steels; cemented carbides and diamond

t ools; catalysts for the petroleum and chemical indus tries; drying agents for paints, varnishes, and inks; ground coats for32 porcelain enamels; pigments; battery electrodes; steel-belted radial tires; and magnetic recording media. Various forms of

cobalt m e tal, including briquettes, cathode (electrolytic cobalt), fines, granules (shot), ingot, powder, and rondelles, have been produced and marketed. Cobalt prices presented

in the table for 1969 onward are for cobalt cathode, which is produced by electro winning. In the electrolytic cell, cobalt metal is deposited on the cathode, usually as a continuous

sheet of cobalt metal. Following removal from the cathode,

the sheet of cobalt can be broken into small pieces and sold as “broken cathode” or cut into squares and sold as “cut

cathode.” Current spot prices quoted in Platt’s Metals Week

are for cathode with a minimum cobalt content of 99.8%.

In addition to general economic conditions and supply/demand fundamentals, the following factors hav e influenced cobalt prices over time: most cobalt is produced as a byproduct of either copper or nickel, resulting in a certain

amount of supply inelasticity; cobalt is produced by a limited number of countries, one of which, the Democratic Republic

of the Congo (formerly Zaire, formerly the Belgian Congo),

was the world’s dominant producer from the 1920’s until the 1990’s; and cobalt is considered to be a strategic and critical metal, and as a result, purchases for and sales from

Government stockpiles have added to demand and supply, respectively. During much of its history, the price of cobalt metal was

set primarily by producers. Before World War II, the leading Belgian, British, Ca nadian, Finnish, and French producers agreed to control cobalt supply and to ma intain a uniform price. Following the War, prices quoted by the Belgian Congo

were generally followed by other producers (Young, 1960, p. 8). Beginning in the mid-1980’s, Zaire and Zambia cooperated in setting the producer price (Jones, 1986; Cobalt Development Institute, 1987). During times when producers

controlled the market, the majority of cobalt sales were directly between producers or their sale s agents and

consumers. These sales were conducted under medium- or long-term agreements at the producer price or at the producer price minus quality and quantity discounts. In the early 1990’s, the African producers lost much of their influence on cobalt prices (Kielty, 1992, p. 2 ). This was the result of

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

T he producer price was renamed the “reference pric e” in 1994, and since then, most cobalt has been sold at free market prices.

In the free market, sa les are between merchants (independent traders) and consumers or merchants and other merchants (intermerchant trading). Cobalt in the free market can originate from producers, either officially or unofficially;

from Government stockpile releases; or consumers with

excess meta l. The volume of free market sales has varied

over time and from country to co u ntry. Free market prices

sometimes change very rapidly. Although they reflect overall supply and demand, they can be strongly influenced by buyer perceptions of short-term availability, and the reasons for sudden changes are not always evident. Historically, cobalt prices were relatively stable until the late 1970’s, when a series of events resulted in concerns over

cobalt supply and a rapid increase in prices to more than $40

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

“cobalt crisis” were as follows: the cessation of cobalt sales

from the U.S. Government stockpile in 1976, a drawdown of

Zai r ian producer inventories following 2 years of sales exceeding production, a sharp increase in demand, a reduction

in cobalt allocations by the Zairia n producer, limited world

cobalt production capaci

ty, and an invasion of the coppercobalt mining region in Zaire (Mining Journal, 1979; Kirk, 1985). Although Zaire’s annual production actually exceeded that of the previous year, the “cobalt crisis” had long-term impacts on the cobalt market. For the first time in many

years, a strong free market in cobalt developed, and cob alt prices gained the reputation of being unstable. Following the “crisis,” production capacity was increased, recycling and recovery of cobalt from secondary materials

also increased, and consumers conserved or substituted cobalt

where possible. The recession in the early 1980’s added to
the reduction in demand and an oversupply situation developed (Kielty, 1988). Beginning in the mid-1980’s, Zaire and Zambia worked together to stabilize cobalt prices. They established a joint producer price and limited sales of cobalt

to the free market (Kramer and Salak, 1984). In addition,

Zaire acted as a “swing producer” by reducing its production

and inventories to meet demand (K i elty, 1990, p. 2-3, 10).

From late 1986 unt il mid-1990, Zaire and Zambia were successful in returning stability to cobalt prices.

Free market price stability ended during the second half of

1990. In early 1990, delayed shipments from African producers, planned cutbacks in nickel production by Canadian

nickel-cobalt producers , assumptions regarding reduced inventory levels in Zaire, and tightening of cobalt supplies on the free market caused concern over future cobalt availability. In July, the free market cobalt price began to rise following

reports of strikes in Zaire and political unre st in Zambia.

News of a cave-in at Zaire’s Kamoto copper-cobalt mine in late September added to concerns over cobalt availability. During 1990, Russia began exporting cobalt to Western

marke ts. The breakup of the Soviet Union, a reduction in

Russian military production, and an increase in demand for

hard currency led to increased exports in 1991. As a result,

Russia became a net exporter of cobalt, and Russian cobalt developed into a significant com ponent of Western supply.

Most of this cobalt was sold by merchants in the free market.

The free market cobalt price slowly decreased during the

first 9 months of 1991. Speculation co ntinued during this period regarding potential supply shortages, but demand was

limited by recessionary economic conditions. Political and

economic tensions in Zaire continued to increase. The price

of cobalt began to rapidly increase following news of renewed

unrest in September and October. The cobalt price peaked at33 more than $30 per pound in late Dec e mber 1991/early January 1992. During the next 2 ye ars, the free market cobalt price

trended downward to approximately $11 per pound. The

decrease during 1992 and 1993 was attributed to the following factors: reduced consumption because of a decrease in U.S.

defense spending, a decrease in demand from the commercial

aircraft sector, and an economic downturn in the United States, Europe, and Japan; reduced demand because of a

drawdown of consumer inventories; and the availability of

cobalt on the free market. Following several years of decli ne, world refined cobalt production reached a low point in 1993. The U.S.

Government began s e lling excess cobalt from the National Defense Stockpile (NDS) in March of that year. NDS cobalt

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

from the NDS and Russia was a lower quality than that typically offered to the market, consumers found ways to take

advan tage of the availability and lower cost of cobalt from

these sources. Beginning in mid-December 1993 and ending in midJanuary 1994, the free mark e t cobalt price more than

doubled. This price increase reflected a growing concern over cobalt supply prompted by the following factors: delays by

the African producers in announcing their 1994 pricing policy,

consumers’ reduced inventory levels resulting from buying on

an as-needed basis, press report s that the copper-cobalt mining region in Zaire had declared autonomy from the rest of the country, expectations for reduced production in 1994,

and merchants’ reports of reduced supplies of Russian cobalt.

The magnitude and speed of the price increase, however, suggested market manipulation (Kielty, 1994). During 1994 and 1995, the supp ly of and demand for

cobalt increased. World production increased, cobalt from

Russia and the NDS continued to contribute to supply, and

the amount of cobalt recovered from intermediate materials

and recycled from scrap increased. Economic conditions improved, and world demand increased. The free market

cobalt price was high and unstable, between $20 and $30 per pound, during most of this 2-year period. The overall trend

in free market prices was upward, reaching more than $32 per pound by December 1995. High cobalt prices, combined with

forecasts for large increases in nickel demand, resulted in the

initiation of a significant number of projects that could produce cobalt within 3 to 6 years either as a byproduct of

nickel or copper min ing or from the processing of cobaltbearing intermediate materials stockpiled during past copper production.

World cobalt production continue d to increase in 1996.

Demand rema ined strong, but the free market cobalt price decreased to approximately $21.50 per pound by yearend.

Market sentiment shifted from concern about availability to
forecasts of potential oversupply as future production

increased at a faster rate than demand. During 1997, world production was approximately equal to
that of 1996, and demand remained strong. The free market

cobalt price fluctuated between approximately $19 and $26

per pound. In 1998, the cobalt price declined significantly. It gradually decreas e d from a high of approximately $26 per pound in January to approximately $24 per pound in early
June, and then rapidly decreased to approximately $10 to $11

per pound by yearend. The decrease in price suggests that plenty of cobalt was available to meet demand. Total sales and shipments of cobalt from the NDS were higher in 1998 than those of 1997, and on the basis of data from the first 6

months of 1998, world production was higher than that of the previous year. In addition, the following were cited as possible contributing factors to the decreasing prices: weak

dem a nd, particularly from the superalloy sector; reduced

de mand because of poor economic conditions in Asia and elsewhere; consumers buying only as needed, drawing down inventories, and delaying purchases while waiting for the price

to bottom out; producers offering cobalt at low prices to

reduce their inventories and/or to gain market share; and

merchants pushing

down prices to buy cheaper cobalt at a later date and/or to gain market share.

In 1999, three new projects in Australia are expected to begin producing cobalt as a byproduct of nickel. Plans for

additional new cobalt product ion are underway or being

considered at various projects in Africa, North America, and

Oceania. This increase in production from more diverse

sources is anticipated to put downward pressure on cobalt prices.

References Cited

Cobalt Development Institute, 1987, Statistics: Cobalt News, March, p. 9-10.
Jones, Monique, 1986, Cobalt market—1985 review: Cobalt News, March, p. 6-10. Kielty, Edward, 1988, Cobalt—More stable time s, in Metals Week nickel, moly, cobalt conference, Tucson, AZ, October 26-28, 1988, Proceedings: New York, Metals Week, 13 p. ———1990, What next for cobalt?—1991—A year to manage change, in Metals Week Conference, Tucson, AZ, October 25- 26, 1990, Proceedings: New York, Metals Week, 26 p.
———1992, Cobalt review and outlook, in Metals Week Ferroalloys Conference, Tucso n, AZ, November 5-6, 1992, Proceedings: New York, Metals Week, 22 p.
———1994, Cobalt—An unpredictable market: Engineering and Mining Journal, v. 195, no. 3, p. 28-30. Kirk, W.S., 1985, A third pricing phase—Stability?: American Metal Market, v. 93, no. 163, August 23, p. 9, 12.
Kramer, David, and Salak, John, 1984, Cobalt $11.70/lb.—Zaire,

Zambia: American Metal Market, v. 92, no. 52, March 15, p. 1,

16. Mining Journal, 1979, Cobalt, in Mining annual review 1979: Mining Journal, 1979, p. 80-81. Young, R.S., 1960, Cobalt—Its chemistry, metallurgy, and uses: New York, Reinhold Publishing Corp., 424 p.34 Annual Average Cobalt Price (Dollars per pound 1 )

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1937 1.29 1953 2.43 1969 1.92 1985 11.43

1938 1.36 1954 2.60 1970 2.20 1986 7.49

1939 1.40 1955 2.60 1971 2.20 1987 6.56

1940 1.50 1956 2.58 1972 2.45 1988 7.09

1941 1.50 1957 2.03 1973 3.04 1989 7.64

1942 1.50 1958 2.00 1974 3.47 1990 10.09

1943 1.50 1959 1.77 1975 3.98 1991 16.92

1944 1.50 1960 1.54 1976 4.47 1992 22.93

1945 1.50 1961 1.50 1977 5.62 1993 13.79

1946 1.50 1962 1.50 1978 24.52 1994 24.66

1947 1.58 1963 1.50 1979 32.83 1995 29.21

1948 1.65 1964 1.50 1980 21.82 1996 25.50

1949 1.76 1965 1.63 1981 15.67 1997 23.34

1950 1.80 1966 1.65 1982 8.56 1998 21.43

1951 2.18 1967 1.85 1983 5.76

1952 2.40 1968 1.85 1984 10.44

1 To convert to dollars per kilogram, multiply by 2.20462.

Note: Annual average prices were derived from price changes reported in the following sources. 1937-77, contract or producer price, domestic quotation for cobalt metal, in U.S. Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook; origins of prices are

unknown. 1978, free market price, cobalt metal, in Engineering and Mining Journal, v. 180, no. 3, 1979, p. 138. 1979, free market price, cobalt metal, in Engineering and Mining Journal, v. 181, no. 3, 1980, p. 112. 1980, European free market price, 99.5% cobalt metal, in Metal Bulletin Handbook, 1981, p. 73. 1981, European free market price, 99.5% cobalt metal, in Metal Bulletin Handbook, 1982, p. 51, and U.S. spot price, 99.5 % cobalt cathode,

in Metals Week. 1982-92, U.S. spot price, 99.5% cobalt cathode, in Metals Week. 1993, U.S. spot price, 99.8% cobalt cathode, in Metals Week. 1994-98, U.S. spot price, 99.8% cobalt cathode, in Platt’s Metals Week.35 

### Yearend Average Columbium (Niobium) Concentrate Price
(Dollars per pound contained columbium pentoxide)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars

Current dollars



### Yearend Average Ferrocolumbium (Ferroniobium) Price

(Dollars per pound contained columbium)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars
Current dollars 

# Nb Columbium (Niobium)

by Larry D. Cunningham36 Significant events affecting columbium prices since 1958

1960-70 Development of pyrochlore deposits in Brazil and Canada

1970-79 Increased demand

1980 Columbium oxide produced from pyrochlore-based feed material

1981 Exports of Brazilian pyrochlore ceased

1994 Production of ferrocolumbium began in Canada

1997-98 Sales of ferrocolumbium from the National Defense Stockpile (NDS)

1998 Expansion of ferrocolumbium production capacity in Brazil

Columb ium is a refractory metal that conducts heat and electricity well and is characterized by a high melting point, resistance to corrosion, and ease of fabrication. Columbium, in the form of ferrocolumbium, is used worldwide mostly as

an alloying

element in steels and in superalloys. Little

commercial application was found for colu mbium until the

1930’s , when metallurgists began using it in the form of

ferrocolumbium in ste el and as columbium carbide in high-speed cutting tools (Cunningham, 1 9 85a). Acceptable substitutes, such as molybdenum, tantalum, titanium,

tungsten, and vanadium, are availa b le for some columbium applications, but substitution may lower performance and/or

cost-effectiveness.

The columbium price is driven by the availability of

co lumbium mineral feed materials, recycling being an insignificant source of supply. Thus, the events affecting the supply of columbiu m mineral concentrates are discussed

herein. A price table and graph, however, are included for standard-grade ferrocolumbium, the dominant form in which

columbium is consumed. In 1979, the increase in demand for “high-purity” ferrocolumbium in superalloys was significant. This increased columbium demand affected the prices for high-purity ferrocolumbium and for columbite, but had no real impact on the price for standard ferrocolumbium. The feed

material for production of high-p urity ferrocolumbium was columbite, and standard ferrocolumbium was produced from pyrochlore. In 1998, the price for columbium contained in

concentrate was $4.29 per pound compared with $6.88 per pound for columbium contained in standard ferrocolumbium. Brazil and Canada are the major producers of columbium

mineral concentrates and converters of the material to

ferrocolumbium. The U.S. columbium-mining industry has

not been significant since 1959. The United States satisfies its

columbium requirements primarily by importing ferrocolumbium and columb i um oxide from Brazil, ferrocolumbium from Canada, and lesser amounts of columbium

concentrates for processing from various countries. Many of

the applications for columbium are either directly or indirectly

defense related because of its use in the aerospace, communications, energy, and transportation i n dustries. Thus,

columbium is classified as critical and strategic, and, over the

years, various columbium materials have been purchased for

the NDS. A si gnificant activity during the 1950’s was the U.S.

Government’s worldwide program for the purchase of about 6,800 metric tons (t) of combined columbium and tantalum

oxides contained in co l umbium-tantalum ores and

concentrates. The purchase program was terminated in 1959 (Cunningham, 1985a, b). The program, which was initiated

to encourage increased production of columb ium-tantalum ores and concentrates of domestic and foreign origin, largely governed the market price for columbium ores and

concentrates. It also resulted in the discovery of large low-grade domestic and foreign deposits of columbium

minerals. The program, however, was less successful in developing domestic columbium mineral production. The low grade of the discoveries precluded their development at

current or expected future prices. Termination of the

program was followed by low er market prices, resulting in

reduced production worldwide. Marginal producers, who

could not operate profitably at lower prices, halted production. Reshaping of columbium supply and demand began in the

1960’s. Discovery of the strengthening effect of small

amounts of columbium in structural carbon steel eventually

led to a wides pread and growing use for columbium in high-strength low-alloy steels. Until the mid-1960’s, the

world’s needs for columbium were pro vided for mostly by columbite concentrates mined in Nigeria; the Nigerian

columbite was produced as a byproduct of tin m ining. Development of pyrochlore deposits in Brazil and Canada during this period, however, greatly inc reased columbium

avail ability (Cunningham, 1985a; Miller, Fantel, and Buckingham, 1986, p. 8; Crockett and Sutphin, 1993, p. 4-5). Pyrochlore deposits are mined primarily for columbium, and

colum bite and tantalite are recovered mostly as a byproduct/coproduct of other minerals, principally tin. The

shift in columbium supply from Nigeria to Brazil and Canada

did not have an adver s e impact on the columbium price, which changed little or not at all during the 1960’s owing to the readily available supplies of pyrochlore. During the 1970’s, increased demand, mostly in the form

of ferrocolumbium for steelmaking, continued to be met by

the large quantities of pyrochlore conce ntrates produced in

Brazil and Canada. Pyrochlore became the standard material

for th e manufacture of ferrocolumbium for steelmaking.37 Columbite-tantalite remained as the source material for the production of columbium oxide used in high-purity

columbium prod ucts. As demand increased in the 1970’s, prices began to escalate for columb ium concentrates and

columbium

products. With continued strong demand for

columbium in the manufacture of steels and especially highpurity columb i um products, the price for columbium concentrates peaked in 1979.

In 1980, an important change in columbiu m supply took place when pla nts that produced columbium oxide from pyrochlore-based feed materials were established in Brazil and

t he United States, which resulted in lower prices for

columbium oxide and high-purity columbium products (Jones, 1981). This change greatly diminished the need for columbite

ores. Until 1980, columbium oxide had been produced mostly from columbite- and tantalite-based materials.

Columbium concentrate prices fell during most of the 1980’s owing to the large quantities of pyrochlore produced in Brazil

and Canada and the columbium products produced from this feed material, especially in Brazil.

Brazil’s production of colu mbium concentrates, mostly pyrochlore, accounts for more than 85% of total world productio n of columbium. Pyrochlore concentrates, however, have not been exported from Brazil since 1981. Pyrochlore

con c entrates produced in Brazil are processed locally, and

some of the upgraded columbium product s are consumed domestically, with the majority of the products exported. As

the dominant columbium producer/supplier, Brazil has maintained a marketing strategy of stable sup ply and moderate price changes.

A significant change took place in the columbium industry

in late 1994. The sole Canadian columbium concentrate producer began ferrocolumbium production at its columbium

mine in Quebec (Teck Corp., 1994, p. 13, 32). The plant

converts basically all pyrochlore concentrates produced at the

mine to ferrocolumbium. Prior to commissioning of the plant, columbium concentrates produced at the mine were shipped mostly to the United States, Europe, and Japan for conversion

to ferrocolumbium.

In 1997, the U.S. Department of Defense initiated the sale

of ferrocolumbium

from the NDS. From March 1997 through December 1998, the Defense Logistics Agency sold

about 211 t of columbium contai ned in ferrocolumbium

valued at about $2.98 million (Cunningham, 1998a, b, p. 1; Defense National Stockpile Center, 1998a, b). The overall

average unit price for the sales, about $6.40 per pound of

contained columbium, was somewhat less tha n that quoted

for ferrocolumbium, $6.88 per pound of conta ined

columbium.

In 1998, the leading Brazilian columbium producer initiated plans to raise its ferrocolumbium production capacity by about 50% by 2000. The expansion is aimed at maintaining

the stability of world supply and pricing of ferrocolumbium in

r esponse to growing international demand (Metal Bulle tin, 1998).

For most of the 1990’s, the price for columbium remained

stable as the demand for and supply of columbium continued

to increase.

References Cited

Crockett, R.N., and Sutphin, D.M., 1993, International Strategic

Minerals Inventory summary report—Niobium (columbium) and tantalum: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 930-M, 36 p. Cunningham, L .D., 1985a, Columbium, i n Mineral facts and problems: U.S. Bureau of Mines Bulletin 675, p. 185-196. ———1985b, Tantalum, i n Mineral facts and problems: U.S. Bureau of Mines Bulletin 675, p. 811-822.
———1998a, Columbium (niobium), in Mineral Commodity Summaries 1998: U.S. Geological Survey, p. 50-51. ———1998b, Columb i um (niobium) and tantalum in

1997—Annual review: U.S. Geol ogical Survey Mineral Industry Surveys, August, 12 p.

Defense National Stoc kpile Center, 1998a, Stockpile accepts

ferrocolumbium offers: Fort Belvoir, VA, Defense National Stockpile Center news release, November 13, 1 p. ———1998b, Stockpile accepts ferrocolumbium offers: Fort Belvoir, VA, Defense National Stockpile Center news release, December 10, 1 p.
Jones, T.S., 1981, Columb ium and tantalum, i n Minerals Yearbook 1980, v. I: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 249-260.

Metal Bulletin, 1998, CBMM expands to maintain ferro-niobium stability: Metal Bulletin, no. 8311, September 21, p. 11. Miller, F.W., Fantel, R.J. , and Buckingham, D.A., 1986,

Columbium availability—Market economy countries—A

minerals availability apprai sal: U.S. Bureau of Mines Information Circular 9085, 20 p.

Teck Corp., 1994, Teck Corp. annual report 1994: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, Teck Corp., 60 p.38 Yearend Average Columbium (Niobium) Concentrate Price (Dollars per pound contained columbium pentoxide 1 )

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1940 0.35 1955 3.40 1970 1.12 1985 3.75

1941 0.35 1956 3.40 1971 1.04 1986 2.75

1942 0.53 1957 3.40 1972 1.29 1987 2.43

1943 0.25 1958 3.40 1973 1.42 1988 2.43

1944 0.25 1959 1.08 1974 1.64 1989 3.25

1945 0.60 1960 1.22 1975 1.71 1990 3.25

1946 0.54 1961 1.00 1976 2.69 1991 2.83

1947 0.65 1962 0.95 1977 2.76 1992 2.83

1948 0.73 1963 0.95 1978 3.03 1993 2.60

1949 1.13 1964 0.85 1979 6.78 1994 2.60

1950 2.55 1965 0.85 1980 6.50 1995 3.00

1951 2.56 1966 1.11 1981 6.13 1996 3.00

1952 3.40 1967 0.97 1982 4.63 1997 3.00

1953 3.40 1968 0.92 1983 4.63 1998 3.00

1954 3.40 1969 1.05 1984 3.75

1 To convert to dollars per kilogram, multiply by 2.20462.

Sources: Metal Bulletin (1946-51), U.S. Government purchase (1952-58), E&MJ Metal and Mineral Markets (1959-66), Metals Week (1967-90), and Metal Bulletin (1991-98). Prices before 1946 were published by the U.S. Bureau of Mines; origins are unknown.

Yearend Average Ferrocolumbium (Ferroniobium) Price 1 (Dollars per pound contained columbium 2 )

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1940 2.30 1955 6.90 1970 3.49 1985 5.66

1941 2.30 1956 6.90 1971 2.55 1986 5.66

1942 2.28 1957 4.90 1972 2.55 1987 5.66

1943 2.28 1958 3.73 1973 3.10 1988 6.00

1944 2.28 1959 3.45 1974 4.12 1989 6.58

1945 2.28 1960 3.45 1975 4.30 1990 6.58

1946 2.28 1961 3.45 1976 4.73 1991 6.58

1947 2.55 1962 3.40 1977 5.12 1992 6.58

1948 2.90 1963 3.00 1978 5.12 1993 6.58

1949 2.90 1964 3.00 1979 5.58 1994 6.58

1950 4.90 1965 3.10 1980 6.29 1995 6.58

1951 4.90 1966 3.21 1981 6.29 1996 6.58

1952 4.90 1967 2.53 1982 6.00 1997 6.88

1953 6.40 1968 2.53 1983 6.00 1998 6.88

1954 12.00 1969 2.79 1984 5.66

1 Standard (steelmaking) grade, 65% contained columbium (1997-98).

2 To convert to dollars per kilogram, multiply by 2.20462.

Sources: Mostly E&MJ Metal and Mineral Markets (1940-66), Metals Week (1967-92), Platt’s Metals Week (1993-96), and American Metal Market (1997-98).39 

### Annual Average U.S. Producer Copper Price

(Cents per pound)

0 50 100 150 200 250

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARCENTS 1992 dollars

Current dollars 

# Cu Copper

by Daniel Edelstein

Significant events affecting copper prices since 1958

1959-60 6-month labor strikes cause tight supplies, 17% U.S. consumption growth in 1959 and export growth in 1960

1961-62 Record high production rates balanced by strong consumption

1963 Voluntary production cutbacks reduce oversupply and help stabilize prices

1964-66 Vietnam War begins, accompanied by strong demand growth and stockpile releases

1967-68 Longest, most severe strikes to date; Government stockpile releases, set aside programs, export controls, and

production stimulus programs initiated to meet defense needs; formation of the Intergovernmental Council of Copper Exporting Countries (CIPEC)

1970-73 Continued high wartime demand; easing of export controls and set-asides; two-tier pricing generates Government

concern; price controls limit rise; nationalization of U.S-owned Chilean properties; the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) oil embargo begins

1974 End of price controls and strong demand cause first-half price rise before second-half economic reversal; last

stockpile release, 229,000 metric tons; fixed exchange rates abandoned

1975-77 Demand drops precipitously owing to recession, copper inventories rise to record levels, price volatility

1978-80 Record copper consumption and lower stock levels; rising precious metals prices; 5-month labor strike; beginning of

Commodity Exchange, Inc. (COMEX)-based pricing

1981 Large growth in domestic and world production; rising inventories

1982-84 Recession; inventory buildup; U.S. production sharply curtailed; expansion of COMEX-based pricing

1985-86 Draw down of high copper inventories; cutback in capacity at U.S. mines; cost-cutting and efficiency moves

1987-89 Historically low inventories; growing world consumption; prices peak at $1.68 in December 198840 1990-92 Global supply constraints balance recession; dissolution of the Soviet Union and political turmoil in Africa;

precarious supply/demand balance leads to price volatility

1993 Stagnant world demand and rising inventories; London Metal Exchange (LME) intervention in market causes sharp

price drop in September

1994-95 Strong global demand growth, sharp inventory decline, record high annual price, LME opens U.S. warehouses

1996 Sumitomo Corp. reveals huge trading losses and prices plummet at midyear despite global inventory decline

1997-98 Asian economic crises and rapid expansion of global capacity combine to generate large global surplus

Historically, wirebar

was the dominant form of copper traded, and the price for refined copper wirebar was the

“bellwether ” price for copper. By the middle 1970’s, however, technology had changed to continuous casting and drawing of wire rod directly from refin ed cathode, thus bypassing the need to cast wirebar. Even though more than

50% of primary copper produced in the United States is

traded as rod by integr ated mine producers, the high-grade

copper cathode price is used as the “base” price for most transactions (Jolly, 1991, p. 46).

About 70% of domestic primary ref i ned copper is produced from a multistage process, beginning with the mining and concentrating of ores, and followed by smelting

and electrolytic refining to produce a high-grade cathode. The

other 30% is produced from acid leaching of copper ores and

wastes and solvent extraction and electrowinning of refined

copper from the pregnant solution. Though most domestic producers have a high degree of vertical integration, copper products from each stage of p rocessing have their own independent markets and are traded globally. Each product

has its own pricing procedure that is linked, for the most part,
to its copper content and the market price for refined copper.

For example, copper concentrates , which contain between

20% and 35% copper, are purc hased on the basis of the

refined copper mark et value of their recoverable copper

c o ntent, with charges taken for smelting and refining.

Penalties may be assessed by the smelter/refiner for unwanted

contaminants or low grade, and credits may be given for

recoverable byproducts. Even though the smelting and refining charges are driven by processing cost fa ctors, they

may fluctuate significantly according to the market balance for

concentrates. Similarly, prices for copper scrap are

discounted from the refined value of the recoverable copper

content to allow for processing costs and profit. Though the

discount from refined must be sufficient to account for processing costs, market conditions for each type of scrap will affect their prices.

Until the late 1970’s, domestic copper prices were generally referenced to the U.S. producer price. The traditional U.S. producer price, which normally included a charge for delivery

and insurance, was based on annually negotiated sales

contracts, with prices ch anging at least quarterly. The producer price system offered stab ility and served the

interests of both the producer and the consumer. Producer prices tended to be above commodity exchange prices during weak markets and below the exchange prices during high

demand periods. During periods of tight supply, U.S. mills,

most of which were producer-owned subsidiaries, were given

allocations assuring them of reasonably priced supplies (Jolly, 1991, p. 46). Although the producer pricing provided stability

for contract purchases, it created a two-tiered price structure, where spot purchases and exchange prices were significantly

different from produ cer prices. During the peak demand period of the Vietnam War, 1964-69, the average LME spot price was $0.575 per pound, compared with only $0.38 for the domestic producer price. Beginning with the nationalization of foreign production in Africa and Chile in the 1960’s and early 1970’s, the US. producers’ influence on domestic and world markets weakened, and domestic producer pricing became more market sensitive, changing frequently to track global prices.

P eriods of surplus supply, which occurred fr om the

mid-1970’s to the mid -1980’s also contributed to the

decreased influence of U.S. producer prices on world markets

as surplus supplies flowed to the exchanges. As a result, U.S. producers abandoned classic producer pricing, some in 1978

and others in the early 1980’s, and changed to a COMEXbased pricing system. Using the first-position COMEX price as a base, producers now quote premiums that may include transportation and insurance costs (Jolly, 1991). The current producer price quoted reflects a weighted ave rage of the

delivered price of copper to domestic consumers by domestic producers. Since the adoption of COMEX-based pricing, the producer margin has averaged almost $0.05 per pound, generally increasing at t imes of low prices and decreasing during high prices. During the high-price period from 1994 to 1997, the producer premium averaged less than 4 cents per pound, and contrary to historical trend, remained at that level although prices fell in 1998.

While the traditional producer prices provided a buffer to price shifts, speculative influence on a COMEX-based pricing

system can res ult in price volatility, especially during tight markets, such as from late 1987 through 1989 and 1995 through 1997. Periods of stock surpluses, such as from 1975

to 1987, and the current market tend to create greater price stability. In response to the greater volatility of

COM EX-based pricing, producers and consumers have

increasi ngly used futures markets to hedge their sales and purchases. Strike periods that occur with expiration of labor contracts41 have a significant effect on copper prices. The two 6-month

strikes in 1946 and 1959, the 9-month strike in 1967-68, and the 5-month strike in 1980, were of particular significance.

The 1967-68 strike had the most severe effect because it

coincided wit h a period of high international demand

occasioned by the Vietnam war and an unusually high period

of worldwide economic growth. Government releases of stockpile material were used to alleviate shortages during each

of these incide nts, with the exception of the 1980 strike,

which took place dur ing a period of high commercial

inventories and low Government stocks (Jolly, 1991, p. 47).

Because more than 65% of world capacity comprises mines

with outputs that are larger than 100,000 tons per year of

copper, disruptions to production at any given large mine can affect prices. For example, from 1989 to 1991, a series of

events tempered what might have otherwise been a modest oversupply per iod. These events included political insurgencies and labor strikes at foreign producers that closed

a 180 ,000-ton-per-year mine in Papua New Guinea and severely reduced production in Zaire. The oversupply was

further tempered by a smelter bottl eneck that developed in late 1991 (Jolly, 1991, p. 47).

Governmen ts’ interventions in economic policies or directly

in c opper markets have had significant effects on copper prices. The U.S. Government has taken action during periods

of war and national emergency to control prices and levy tariffs, to impose expo rt quotas, to provide price supports,

lend monies for expansion and exploration, t o guarantee production purchases, and to buy and sell for the national stockpile. Most of these strategies , including the use of price

controls (1971-74) were applied most re cently during the Vietnam War. Beginning in the middle 1960’s with the

nationalization of copper mines in Chile, the Democratic Republic of the Cong o (formerly Zaire) and Zambia, the

world's private copper-mining industry (principally American)

lost a significant share of its net equity and influence in copper and its ability to modulate production at times of surplus. In

1978 and 1983, which were periods of depressed copper prices, the U.S. industry unsuccess fully filed suit with the

International Trade Commission to restrict imports of “lowpriced” copper. Currency devaluations by copper-exporting

counties also served to lower their costs to and maintain production levels. In 1967, the Inter-governmental CIPEC

was formed. Its attempt to intervene in the depressed copper

market in 1975 by limiting production of member countries to
90% of normal production and by reducing CIPEC-country

copper expo rts by 15% was not fully observed and was

unsuccessful in stimulating a price rise (Mi k esell, 1979, p. 187-215). Although the price of copper has been influe nced by

business cycles, gove r nment policy, and technological changes, production costs and th e balance between supply

and demand have ultimately been the principal determinants.

The above influences, combined with the large capital

investment and long lead times required to develop new mines, have, in recent decades, resulted in a highly cyclical

copper industry. World mine production reached a peak in 1974 at the height of a major economic recession; this

followed capacity growth stimulated by the high-demand war years. The resulting oversupply kept prices depressed for 4 years. Strong growth in consumption in the latter part of the

1970’s led

to tight supplies, high prices, and expansions in global capacity. When a sharp economic recession began in 1981, wo rld mine production and capacity were again reaching peak levels. The resulting oversupply depressed prices for 5 years and resulted in the initial shutdown of about

one-third of U.S. mine production. The large surplus and low prices discouraged new production and set the stage for

the tight supplies and high prices that ensued from 1987 to

1992. There had been a 3-year shortfall in global production while overhanging inventories were worked off. The rise in price during 1987 was delayed by changing business practices,

such as a shift to just-in-time inventories, and the expectations

of new capacity. Large capital investments, particularly in the United States, had greatly increased worker productivity and allowed producers to regain profitability at the prevailing low prices.

World copper inventori

es began to rise in 1990 with the

onset of a global recession and, except for a dip in 1992,

continu ed to rise through most of 1993. Though relatively high by historical standards, copper prices declined as copper inventories rose. In 1992, a short-lived dip in inventories that

was attributed to a bottleneck i n smelter capacity caused prices to spike upward for several months before resu ming

their downward trend. Despite rising LME inventories, a second spike in prices occurred in mid-1993; a spot shortage

of copper developed that was attributed to market control by

several larg

e market participants. Prices plummeted in

Se ptember when the LME intervened to limit price

backwardation (forwar d prices selling at a discount to spot prices).

Prices rose precipitously in 1994 following a strong growth

in world demand, which had stagnated during the preceding

3 years, and development of a supply deficit. Beginning in 1994, numerous factors combined to stimulate a surge in new capacity development: a rapid growth in world demand fueled by the United States and Asia; changing political/investment climates, including increased government stability and privatization efforts, particularly in South America, made foreign investment more attractive; environmental restrictions

made investment in North America less attractive; and companies sought to p rotect themselves from future

downturns b y investing in lower cost production. An anticipated surplus in production was delayed, in part, by higher-than-expected consumption a n d by production disruptions, incl

uding political strife in Africa, that reduced expected output. In June 1996, copper prices plummeted from the high level of the previous 18 months, the producer price falling to $0.94, following revelations by Sumitomo that

it had lost several billion dollars on unauthorized copper trades42 and speculation by industry that Sumitomo held large unreported copper inventories (Platt’s Metals Week, 1996). Following the sharp drop in prices, however, an increasingly tight copper supply caused prices to rise, recovering to $1.20 per pound. With the onset of the Asian economic crises in 1997, demand failed to keep pace with production increases

and an anticipated global copper surplus developed. The

constant dollar copper price in 1998 fel l to the lowest level since the Great Depression of the 1930’s. References Cited

Jolly, J.L., 199 1, Copper, i n Metal prices in the United States through 1991: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 45-52. Mikesell, R.F., 1979,The world copper industry: Baltimore, MD, Johns Hopkins University Press, 393 p.

Platt’s Metals Week, 1996, Sum i tomo copper position raises market anxiety: Platt’s Metals Week, v. 67, no. 25, June 7, p.

1.

Annual Average U.S. Producer Copper Price

(Cents per pound 1 )

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1850 22 1888 16.8 1926 14.05 1964 32.35

1851 17 1889 13.5 1927 13.05 1965 35.36

1852 22 1890 15.6 1928 14.81 1966 36.00

1853 22 1891 12.8 1929 18.35 1967 38.10

1854 22 1892 11.6 1930 13.23 1968 41.17

1855 27 1893 10.8 1931 8.37 1969 47.43

1856 27 1894 9.5 1932 5.79 1970 58.07

1857 25 1895 10.7 1933 7.28 1971 52.09

1858 23 1896 10.8 1934 8.66 1972 51.44

1859 22 1897 11.29 1935 8.88 1973 59.49

1860 23 1898 12.03 1936 9.71 1974 77.27

1861 22 1899 16.70 1937 13.39 1975 64.16

1862 22 1900 16.19 1938 10.22 1976 69.59

1863 34 1901 16.10 1939 11.20 1977 66.77

1864 47 1902 11.63 1940 11.53 1978 65.81

1865 39.2 1903 13.20 1941 12.00 1979 92.19

1866 34.2 1904 12.80 1942 12.00 1980 101.31

1867 25.4 1905 15.60 1943 12.00 1981 84.21

1868 23.0 1906 19.30 1944 12.00 1982 72.80

1869 24.2 1907 20.00 1945 12.00 1983 76.53

1870 21.2 1908 13.20 1946 14.04 1984 66.85

1871 24.1 1909 13.11 1947 21.27 1985 66.97

1872 35.6 1910 12.88 1948 22.32 1986 66.05

1873 28.0 1911 12.55 1949 19.50 1987 82.50

1874 22.0 1912 16.48 1950 21.58 1988 120.51

1875 22.7 1913 15.52 1951 24.50 1989 130.95

1876 21.0 1914 13.31 1952 24.50 1990 123.16

1877 19.0 1915 17.47 1953 29.05 1991 109.33

1878 16.6 1916 28.46 1954 29.94 1992 107.42

1879 18.6 1917 29.19 1955 37.51 1993 91.56

1880 21.4 1918 24.68 1956 42.00 1994 111.05

1881 19.2 1919 18.19 1957 30.17 1995 138.33

1882 19.1 1920 17.50 1958 26.31 1996 109.04

1883 16.5 1921 12.65 1959 30.99 1997 106.92

1884 13.0 1922 13.56 1960 32.34 1998 78.64

1885 10.8 1923 14.75 1961 30.32

1886 11.1 1924 13.28 1962 31.00

1887 13.8 1925 14.30 1963 31.00

1 To convert to cents per kilogram, multiply by 2.20462.

Note: 1850-96, New York price for Lake copper (99.9%-pure copper), in Loughlin, G.F., Prefatory note on the report on gold, silver, copper, lead, and zinc, Mineral Resources of the United States 1922, Part I, U.S. Geological Survey, 1925, p. 127a. 1897-98, New York price for Lake copper (99.9%-pure copper), in Engineering and Mining Journal. 1899-1908, Electrolytic (99.9%-pure copper) refinery price in New York, in Engineering and Mining Journal. 1909-22, Electrolytic (99.9%-pure copper) domestic f.o.b. refinery, in American Metal Market. 1923-72, Electrolytic (99.9%-pure copper) domestic delivered to Connecticut price, in American Metal Market. 1973-77, U.S. producer electrolytic (99.9%-pure copper) wirebar, in Metals Week. 1978-98, U.S. producer cathode (99.99%-pure copper), in Metals Week (1978-92) and Platt’s Metals Week (1993-98).43 

### Annual Average Gallium Price (Dollars per kilogram)

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars

Current dollars 

# Ga

Gallium

by Deborah A. Kramer

Significant events affecting gallium prices since 1958

1960-63 Technologic improvements in gallium recovery and purification techniques

1966-73 U.S. gallium demand increases significantly because of widespread use of light-emitting diodes (LED’s)

Prices shown in the above graph are for gallium of

99.9999% purity. This grade has been used since the 1960’s

in gallium-arsenide-based optoelectronic devi c es, including LED’s, laser diodes, and solar cells. From 1936 to 1960, prices for 99.9%-pure gallium were quoted at $3,000 per kilogram; this grade of metal, however, had very limited uses in commercial applications. Most of its consumption was for experimental purpos es; small quantities were used as a specialized mirror coating, in high-temperature thermometers,

and in low-melting-point alloys. Consequently, there was little

relation between prices prior to 1960 and those after that time when commercial applications were developed.

Gallium is recov ered primarily as a byproduct from the refining of bauxite to alumina. As a byproduct metal, price

trends for gallium are not significan tly influenced by

macroeconomic factors; rather, the y are driven by gallium supply and demand relations. The large drop in prices in the early 1960’s was principally because of technologic improvements in gallium recovery and purification processes. Commercial gallium extraction techniques were introduced in

the late 1950’s (Beja, 1951; de la Breteque, 1957). As these processes were improved, the availability of gallium became greater, but the demand did not increase.

Introducti on of the gallium-arsenide-based LED changed the consumption pattern of gallium from that of a laboratory curiosity to a metal with some consumer applications. LED = s,44 used in consumer appl

ications, such as displays in digital

watches and hand-held calculators, were responsible for large annual increases in demand from 1966 to 1973. To capture

the LED market, gallium prices continued to drop throughout this period.

Research and development of galliu m arsenide’s semiconducting properties, which were begun in the mid-1960’s, has continued through 1998 as potential applications for the

material continue to be evaluated (Brodsky, 1990). Galliumarsenide-based integrated circuits h ave been developed and

have made inroads into low-volume applications, such as sophisticated military warfare systems and supercomputers. Because these are low-volume applications and the quantity

of gallium used per unit produced is small, gallium’s raw material cost is not a significant factor in the item’s final cost.
The demand for gallium, therefore, has not increased to a level that cannot be met by existing supplies, and th e re has

been no incentive to increase gallium’s price. Although gallium prices have decreased as its uses have grown, it is still

used in small quantities compared with many other metals and only in specialized

applications where its properties are

crucial.

Most gallium prices are direc tly negotiated between the producer and consumer, with larger volume consumers able

to negotiate lower prices. Producer-quoted prices, therefore,

may not represent actual selling prices; in most cases, they provide an indication of the trend of gallium prices.

References Cited

Beja, Maurice, 1951, Method of extracting gallium oxide from aluminous substances: U.S. Patent 2,574,008, 5 p. Brodsky, M.H., 1 9 90, Progress in gallium arsenide semiconductors: Scientific American, v. 262, no. 2, p. 68-75.

de la Breteque, Pierre, 1957, Method of recovering gallium from an alkali aluminate lye: U.S. Patent 2,793,179, 6 p.

Annual Average Gallium Price 1 (Dollars per kilogram)

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1959 3,000 1969 850 1979 510 1989 475

1960 2,600 1970 850 1980 630 1990 475

1961 2,250 1971 850 1981 630 1991 475

1962 1,750 1972 750 1982 470 1992 475

1963 1,200 1973 750 1983 470 1993 330

1964 1,200 1974 775 1984 445 1994 325

1965 1,200 1975 775 1985 475 1995 390

1966 1,200 1976 775 1986 475 1996 390

1967 1,200 1977 550 1987 475 1997 550

1968 1,200 1978 550 1988 475 1998 550

1 99.9999%-pure gallium metal.

Source: American Metal Market.45 

### Annual Average Germanium Price (Dollars per kilogram)

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars

Current dollars 

# Ge

Germanium

by Robert D. Brown, Jr.

Significant events affecting germanium prices since 1958

1979-82 Increased demand, tight supply

1984 National Defense Stockpile (NDS) authorization, goal 30,000 kilograms

1987 New authorized NDS goal of 146,000 kilograms

1991 NDS goal lowered to 68,000 kilograms

1996 Increased demand, production shortages

1997 NDS stockpile sales begin

Germanium was discovered by Clemens Winkler in 1886, although its existence had been predicted by D.I. Mendeleev

in his periodic table of elements in 1869. Germanium is a hard, grayish-white element; has a metallic luster; has the

same crystal structure as diamond; and is brittle, like glass. It

is a semiconductor, with electrical properties between those of a metal and an insulator. Germanium and its compounds

r emained almost entirely items of interest for research until

W orld War II, although the use of germanium dioxi de in treating anemia was reported in 1922 (Gregory, 1942).

With t he invention and development of the crystal diode

and the transistor, in the 1940’s, germanium became an46 important industria l material (Bardeen and Brattain, 1948). Prior to 1945, the amount of germanium produced was very small, a few hundred pounds per year. From 1945 to 1949,

the demand for electronic uses resulted in substantial growth of the germanium industry and higher prices for the metal.

After 1 953, germanium prices started to decline progressively and, by 1966, bottomed out at $175 per kilogram of metal, the lowest price ever quoted. This price prevailed for the next 2 years, rose in 1969, and rose again in

1970 because of inflationary trends in the market. Prices

remained co n stant at $293 per kilogram from 1971 through

1976.

The invention and development of the germanium transistor opened the door for countless applications of solid-state

electronics. From 1950 through the early 1970’s, this area provided an excellent market for germanium. In the 1970’s,

d emand for germanium in transistors, diodes, and rectifiers declined, owing mainly t o the increasing use of electronic-grade sil

icon as a replacement. The reduced

demand for germanium in the elec tronic field was offset, however, by a dramatic increases in demand in fiber optics

communication networks (Roskill's Letter from Japan, 1997), in infrared night vision systems (Metal Bulletin 1975), and as a polymerization catalyst (Metal Bulletin, 1995). These end

uses represented 77% of worldwide germanium consumption

for 1998. Increased demand and tight supply caused dramatic

increases in both domestic and foreign prices for germanium

metal beginning in 1979. By December 1981, the domestic germanium metal quoted price was set at $1,060 per kilogram

and remained there for 13 years. During most of this period,

the free market pr i ce remained lower than the published producer price for germanium metal, owing to the

devel opment of a worldwide excess of supply relative to

demand. Germanium was designated a strategic and critical material

and was included in the National Defense Stockpile (NDS) in

1984 with an initial goal of 30,000 kilogram s of germanium

metal. In 1987, a new NDS goal of 146,000 kilograms was

established on the basis of U.S. Depar tment of Defense estimates for actual emergency conditions of mobilization. In 1991, the goal was adjusted downwards to 68,000 kilograms.

In 1995, the Defense Logistics Age ncy, which manages the NDS, made plans to sell germanium from the stockpile at the rate of 4,000 kilograms per year, through 2005. The release

rate was increased to 6,000 kilograms per year in 1997, the

first year of actual sales, and to 8,000 kilograms per year in 1998 (U.S. Department of Defense, 1998). Yearend 1998 inventory was 54,300 kilograms (Defense Logistics Agency, oral commun., 1999).

St arting in 1995, the producer price rose again and

fluctuated around $1,500 per kilogram. It reached $2,000 per kilogram in 1996. The higher price levels were due to

increased demand and shortages in production. The gradual

releases of germanium from the U.S., Russian, and Ukrainian stockpiles with the lowering of world military tensions tended to stabilize prices. Historically, the supply of germanium has been more than adequate to meet demand, and throughout its relatively short

industrial existence, germanium has remained a “high-tech”

material.

References Cited

Bardeen, John, and Brattain, W.H., 1948, The transistor—A

semiconductor triode: Physics Review, v. 74, Series 2, July 15, p. 230-31. Gregory, T.C., 1942, Germanium, in The condensed chemical dictionary: New York, Reinhold, p. 320.

M etal Bulletin, 1975, Minor, precious metals—Germanium: Metal Bulletin, no. 5971, March 4, p. 21. ———1995, Germanium dioxide prices continue to firm: Metal Bulletin, no. 7982, May 25, p. 7.

R oskill’s Letter From Japan, 1997, Germanium—Grow th in

demand led by the use of high-purity germanium tetrachloride

in optical fibres: Roskill’s Letter From Japan, no. 256, August, p. 2-6.

U.S . Department of Defense, 1998, Strategic and critical

materials report to the Congress: U.S. Department of Defense, January 13, 43 p.47 Annual Average Germanium Price (Dollars per kilogram)

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1945 441 1959 350 1973 293 1987 1,060

1946 397 1960 300 1974 293 1988 1,060

1947 397 1961 300 1975 293 1989 1,060

1948 507 1962 300 1976 293 1990 1,060

1949 727 1963 270 1977 314 1991 1,060

1950 397 1964 270 1978 319 1992 1,060

1951 397 1965 270 1979 398 1993 1,060

1952 484 1966 175 1980 653 1994 1,060

1953 720 1967 175 1981 911 1995 1,375

1954 650 1968 175 1982 1,060 1996 2,000

1955 650 1969 185 1983 1,060 1997 1,475

1956 535 1970 280 1984 1,060 1998 1,700

1957 445 1971 293 1985 1,060

1958 445 1972 293 1986 1,060

Note: 1945-57, Domestic price for 99.9%-pure germanium, in E & MJ Metal and Mineral Markets. 1957-66, Domestic price for zone-refined germanium (99.9999% pure), in E & MJ Metal and Mineral Markets. 1967-81, Domestic price for zone-refined germanium (99.9999% pure), in Metals Week. 1982-93, U.S. producer price for zone-refined germanium (99.9999% pure), in Metals Week [through June 14, 1993]. 1993-94, U.S. producer price for zone-refined germanium (99.9999% pure), in Platt's Metals Week. 1995-98, U.S. producer price quotes for zone-refined germanium (99.9999% pure), in U.S. Geological Survey, Minerals Yearbook.(This page intentionally left blank.)49 

### Annual Average Gold Price (Dollars per troy ounce)

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200

1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars

Current dollars 

# Au

Gold

by Earle B. Amey

Significant events affecting U.S. gold prices since 1958

1961 The London gold pool was established in which U.S. central banks and seven other nations agreed to buy and sell gold

to support the $35 per troy ounce price that had been established on January 31, 1934

1968 The London gold pool sustained enormous losses and was discontinued; the two-tier gold price was established, one

tier was for official monetary transactions, the other for open-market transactions

1969-70 Mild U.S. recession

1971 President suspends convertibility of dollar into gold, dollar devalued by 7.9%

1972 Official U.S. gold price increased to $38 per ounce

1973 Official U.S. gold price increased to $42.22, dollar devalued, two-tier gold price terminated, Organization of

Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) oil embargo begins

1974 U.S. citizens allowed to hold gold bullion and coins for the first time in 40 years

1975 U.S. Treasury begins public sales of gold stocks

1976 International Monetary Fund (IMF) begins 5-year gold sales program, IMF auctions and lower inflation outlook drive

gold prices down

1977 Hiatus in U.S. Treasury gold sales

1978 U.S. Treasury resumes selling gold, Middle Eastern investors increase gold purchases

1979 Soviet Union invades Afghanistan; political upheaval in Iran, taking of U.S. hostages50 1980 Gold price peaks at an historic daily high of $850 per ounce on January 21, IMF completes 5-year gold sales program

1982-88 Fluctuating world currency exchange rates, increasing concern about U.S. trade and budget deficits and banking

problems, and Third World debt

1989-91 Conflict in the Persian Gulf and the breaking up of the Soviet Union, erosion of gold’s role as a safe haven for

investors, generally weak economic growth worldwide

1992-96 Gold price remains relatively stable

1997-98 Central banks of several countries sell large shares of gold holdings to meet common-currency criteria for European

Union or to demonetize; bank failures or insolvencies in East and Southeast Asian countries

The price of a fine suit of men’s clothes can be used to
show anyone who is not familiar with the price history of gold just how very cheap gold is today. With an ounce of gold, a man could buy a fine suit of clothes in the time of Shakespeare, in that of Beethoven and Jefferson, and in the Depression of the 1930’s. In fact, this statement was still true in the 1980’s, but not in the late 1990’s. The suit standard now implies a gold price of perhaps $1,000 per troy ounce. Today, a really good man’s suit can easily cost 4 ounces of gold, and that is wi

t hout a vest, which once was standard (Forbes, 1998). Increases in gold price have had a good basis of precedent

in history. During the period from 1344 to 1717, the price for gold almost quadrupled, reaching the equivalent of $20.67 per

ounce. That price was maintained for more than 200 years

until the enactment of the Gold Reserve Act, which increased

it to $35 per ounce, on January 30, 1934. Pressure for still

another increase in price gat hered momentum less than 15

years l ater. Prices as high as $105 per ounce had been proposed, and world trade brought prices up to $70 per ounce. (Colorado School of Mines, 1959).

In November 1961, the London gold pool, in which central

banks of the United States and seven other nations agreed to buy and sell gold to support the $35-per-ounce price, was established (Ryan and McBreen, 1963, p. 607). On March

17 , 1968, the governors of the member central banks

announced that they would no longer buy and sell gold in the private market, but would sell gold to each other for $35 per ounce. Thus, a two-tier market was established—an official

mar ket and a private market—in which the price was determined by supply and demand (Ryan, 1970, p. 535). Following the establishment of the two-tier price system, a fixed price of $35 per ounce for official monetary transactions and a floating market price for private transactions, the U.S. Government asked Engelhard Minerals and Chemicals Corp. (known today as Engelhard Corp.), to quote a daily price. Engelhard initiated a buying quotation—the lowest price at

which it could obtain sufficient gold of 99.95% purity to meet
its requirements. A selling quotation $0.60 above the buying pri ce, later reduced to $0.40, was also established (Ryan,
1970, p. 535). Thus, the basis for the average domestic market price for gold shown in the table was established.

On A ugust 15, 1971, the President announced the suspension of convertibility of dollars into gold (West, 1973,

p. 540). Following provisions of Public Law 92-268, the Par Value Modification Act, enacted March 31, 1972, the official price of gold was increased to $38 per ounce on May 8, 1972 (West, 1975, p. 557). Following amendments to the Par Value Modification Act

contained in Public Law 93-110, enacted on September 21, 1973, the dollar’s par value was devalued by 10%, to

0.829848 Special Drawing R ights (a unit of account in the IMF). This fixed the official price of gold at $42.22 per

ounce effective at 12:01 a.m., October 18, 1973. That price

remains unchanged. The two-tier pricing system was terminated on November 13, 1973 (West, 1975, p.560). Following provisions of Public Law 93-373, enacted August 14, 1974, the President was given the authority to repeal the prohibitio n on the holding of gold by private citizens, and effective December 31, 1974, the prohibition was repealed (West, 1976, p. 603).

Gold occupies a uniqu e position among the world’s commodities; it is an internationally traded commodity and a long-established, universally acceptable storehouse of value, considered by many people worldwide to be superior to fiat

paper currencies with

fleeting longevity or fluctuating unpredictable value. It has been said many times that gold is “forever”; its high intrinsic and monetary value usually

dictates that, in time, most of it will be recycled to serve again. Because of its historically high value, much of the gold mined throughout history is still in circulation in one form or another (Lucas, 1993, p. 505).

A s a consequence of the dual roles played by gold, as commodity and as money, its price cannot be viewed as one would view the price of other goods or services in a free

market. Gold also cannot be viewed strictly from the standpoint of the U.S. market alone be cause international political and economic events that may influence the market

for gold as a commodity may be outweighed by developments perceived to favor gold as a medium of exchange. During 1969 and 1970 the United States experienced a mild recession, while the Republic of South Africa was permitted

to sell gold to the IMF at $3 5 per ounce or less to meet its foreign exchange needs (Hoyt, 1970, p. 521). By December 1971, the U.S. dollar had been devalued by

7.9% pe r exchange agreements reached during the

Smithsonian Accords in Washing ton, DC (West, 1973, p. 539-540). Affected by previous year’s devaluation, the

official U.S. gold price was raised to $38 per ounce on May 8, 1972; speculative buying was encouraged by monetary51 policy changes made by the European Economic Community and by restricted supplies of newly mined gold (West, 1974, p. 567). In 1973, the gold market was influenced by a weakening

and devaluation of the U.S. dollar, lowered confid ence in currency values, higher inflation rates, unsettled world trade, and, for the third consecutive year, lower mine production.

The official U.S. gold price was increased to $42.22 per

ounce on September 21. An embargo was begun on petroleum shipments to the United States by OPEC in

mid-October. The two-tier gold price system, begun in 1968, was terminated (West, 1975, p. 557).

The OPEC embargo contributed to rising oil prices,

worldwide inflatio n
, and general economic uncertainty in

1974. Gold prices rose on speculation near yearend, pending

the yearend removal of restrictions on U.S. citizens holding gold. The gold price trend was reversed in December by the U.S. Treasury’s announcement that it would offer 2 million ounces of Treasury gold for public sale beginning on January
6, 1975 (West, 1976, p. 603). Investor and speculator

interest was diminished by the announcement by the IMF that it would sell 25 million ounces of gold on the open market beginning in 1976. The Treasury, however, was able to sell

1.25 million ounces from its gold stock during 1975 (West, 1977, p. 669). Monthly IMF auctions were begun in midyear 1976 to provide capital for low-interest loans to developing countries.

The IMF planned to sell a total of one-sixth of its gold stocks,

or 25 million ounces, over a 5-year period, and planned to restore an equal portion to member countries. In addition, a

reduced inflation outlook drove prices down until October when the low gold price and renewed anxiety about the economy served to reverse price trends. The Treasury gold

stock was down at yearend owing to its use in Bicentennial medals, which were made by the Bureau of the Mint and sold by the A

merican Revolution Bicentennial Administration (West and Butterman, 1978, p. 591).

Th e world economy was stagnant in 1977. Limited

success in controlling inflation led to higher gold prices, which

benefitted the IMF auctions that continued t hroughout the

year. There was a hiatus in Treasury sales (Butterman, 1980, p. 428).

IMF auctions continued during 1 978, and the Treasury

resumed gold stock selling (Butte rman, 1980, p. 428).

Middle-East oil- producing countries and investors began purchasing gold with their eroding dollar assets.

Economic conditions worsened during the nex t 3 years. Negative political events in Iran, Afghanistan, and elsewhere propelled the price of gold to an historic high of $850 per ounce by January 21, 1980. The IMF completed its 5-year

auction program in May 1980. The Treasury sold no more gold in 1980 or 1981 (Lucas, 1981, p. 347). After the U.S. hostages were released by Iran on January 20, 1981, political

tension was lessened, which led to less hoarding and reduced gold prices. The Japanese began to invest in the gold market. Although the United States’ strict monetary policy

contributed to a recession and high interest rates in 1982, the

advent of computer trading contributed to short-term volatility in the gold price (Lucas, 1983, p. 370). Lingering effects of

the world economic recession on the mineral industry led to profit taking during the first part of 1983. Speculative gold trading to midyear strengthened price but was followed by profit taking (Lucas, 1984, p. 385). Oil prices weakened,

while gold supplies from mines and official sources increased.

In 1984, the price declined, owing to increasing strength of

the U.S. dollar and investor selling. Weakened price and a

favorable market outlook contributed to increases in demand

for gold-bearing fabricated pro d ucts (Lucas, 1985, p. 423).

The U.S. dollar weakened in the first quarter of 1985 against major European currencies and the Japanese yen. It continued weakening in 1986, which encouraged gold investment (Lucas, 1988, p. 441) as oil prices declined sharply. By 1987, there was a sharp reversal in world stock markets

with a continued weakness of the U.S. dollar combined with growing concern regarding U.S. budget and trade deficits and increasing U.S. private and Third World debt. Stability of the

international monetary arrangements was questioned. Volatile investment markets generated increased gold-trading activity (Lucas, 1988, p. 441). During 1988, gold prices declined in

response to a variety of factors, such as the withdrawal of the

U.S.S.R. from Afghanistan, which gave investors the perception that political stability was at hand; weakening oil prices combined with an increase in interest rates by the U.S.

Federal Reserve led to reduced inflationary expectati o ns, increasing U.S. dollar strength, as well as improved U.S. trade results (Lucas, 1989, p. 64-65).

Official sector gold sales increased in 1989 as central banks adopted a more aggressive policy of gold management (Lucas, 1991, p. 468). In addition, a change of attitude developed

toward gold, aided by concerns about the security of bonds

and ot her financial assets and a setback in the U.S. stock

markets i

n mid-October (Gold Fields Mineral Services Limited, 1990, p. 8). The rise in Japanese interest rates in 1990 provided

alternate investment havens. The U.S.S.R. was reported to

have sold significant amounts of gold for hard currency. The

Chinese so ld out of equity swap agreements that were

negot iated in mid-1989. The gold price drifted down as a

result of the Persian Gulf War and the recession (Gold Fields Mineral Services Limited, 1991, p. 8-9).

The brief multination conflict that starte d in 1991 in the

Persian Gulf did little to affect the perception of moderating political stability generally or to influence the price of gold for any sustained period of time. The collapse and restructuring

of the U.S.S.R., however, did much to reduce investor

interest in gold (Gold Fields Mineral Services Limited, 1992, p. 5).

The end of the 1992 bear market encouraged a return of European and U.S. investor confidence. In 1993, the high gold price, which particularly affected the local currencies of52 the Middle East and Asi a
, resulted in reduced hoarding of

coins and large amounts of gold scrap being off-loaded into the market (Roskill Information Services Ltd., 1995, p. i). During 1994, the gold market held onto the gains achieved during the previous year, but the U.S. dollar p rice lacked

direct ion and volatility. Hoarding of gold continued to be reduced, as inv estors deserted the market (Roskill Information Services Ltd., 1995, p. i).

The average dolla r price of gold remained almost unchanged between 1994 and 1996. Late in the fourth

quarter of 1996, the Dutch Government provided a key catalyst by selling

one-third of its reserves (Gold Fields Mineral Services Limited, 1997, p. 5). Fears that other

cent ral banks might sell their gold reserves followed (CRU International Ltd., 1996, p. 19). During 1997 and 1998, central banks of several countries sold large shares of gold holdings to meet common-currency

criteria for the European Union or to demonetize. Bank

failures or insolvencies in East and Southeast Asian countries

created uncertainty in investment circles. The price of gold

returned to the low levels of 1979 (Gold Fields Mineral Services Limited, 1998, p. 5).

References Cited

Butterman, W.C., 1980, Gold, in Minerals Yearbook 1977, v. I: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 427-445.
———1980, Gold, in Minerals Yearbook 1978-79, v. I: U.S Bureau of Mines, p. 377-399. Colorado School of Mines, 1959, The price for gold: Colorado

School of Mines Mineral Industri es Bulletin, v. 2, no. 6, November, p. 10.

CRU International Ltd., 1996, Gold: CRU I nternational Ltd. Quarterly Market Service, November, 60 p. Forbes, 1998, Gold miners versus haberdashers: Forbes, May 4, v. 161, no. 9, p. 50-51.

Gold Fields Mineral Services Limited, 1990, Gold 1990: [London], Gold Fields Mineral Services Limited, 64 p.
———1991, Gold 1991: [London], Gold Fields Min eral Services Limited, 64 p.
———1992, Gold 1992: [London ], Gold Fields Mineral Services Limited, 64 p.
———1997, Gold 1997: [London], Gold Fields Mineral Services Limited, 71 p.
———1998, Gold 1998: [London], Gold Fields Mi neral Services Limited, 63 p. Hoyt, C.D., 1970, Gold, in Minerals Yearbook 1969, v. I: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 521-538. Lucas, J.M., 1981, Gold, in Minerals Yearbook 1980, v. I: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 347-373.
———1983, Gold, in Minerals Yearbook 1982, v. I: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 369-396.
———1984, Gold, in Minerals Yearbook 1983, v. I: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 385-411. ———1985, Gold, in Minerals Yearbook 1984, v. I: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 405-435.
———1988, Gold, in Minerals Yearbook 1986, v. I: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 421-458. ———1988, Gold: U.S. Bureau of Mines Mineral Commodity Summaries 1987, p. 62-63.
———1989, Gold: U.S. Bureau of Mines Mineral Commodity Summaries 1989, p. 64-65.
———1991, Gold, in Minerals Yearbook 1989, v. I: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 455-482.
———1993, Gold, in Minerals Yearbook 1990, v. I: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 495-522. Roskill Information Services Ltd., 1995, Gold—Market update, analysis, and outlook: Roskill Information Services Ltd., 145 p., 3 apps., unpaginated. Ryan, J. P

., 1970, Gold, in Minerals Yearbook 1968, v. I: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 529-549. Ryan, J.P., and McBreen, K.M., 1963, Gold, i n Minerals Yearbook 1961, v. I: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 597-618. West, J.M., 1973, Gold, in Minerals Yearbook 1971, v. I: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 539-560.
———1974, Gold, in Minerals Yearbook 1972, v. I: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 567-588. ———1975, Gold, in Minerals Yearbook 1973, v. I: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 557-581.
———1976, Gold, in Minerals Yearbook 1974, v. I: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 603-626.
———1977, Gold, in Minerals Yearbook 1975, v. I: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 669-696.

West , J.M., and Butterman, W.C., 1978, Gold, i n Minerals Yearbook 1976, v. I: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 591-615.53 Annual Average Gold Price 1 (Dollars per troy ounce 2 )

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1968 40.06 1976 125.32 1984 360.66 1992 344.97

1969 41.51 1977 148.31 1985 317.66 1993 360.91

1970 36.41 1978 193.55 1986 368.24 1994 385.41

1971 41.25 1979 307.50 1987 477.95 1995 385.50

1972 58.60 1980 612.56 1988 438.31 1996 389.08

1973 97.81 1981 459.64 1989 382.58 1997 332.38

1974 159.74 1982 375.91 1990 384.93 1998 295.14

1975 161.49 1983 424.00 1991 363.29

1 Domestic market price, 99.95%-pure gold.

2 To convert to dollars per kilogram, multiply by 32.1507.

Source: Engelhard Corp., published in Metals Week [through June 14, 1993] and Platt’s Metal Week.(This page intentionally left blank.)55 

### Yearend Hafnium Sponge Metal Price

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars

Current dollars 

### (Dollars per kilogram) 

# Hf

Hafnium

by James B. Hedrick

Significant events affecting hafnium prices

1950 The decision to use hafnium-free zirconium in nuclear reactors

1951 The decision to use hafnium in nuclear reactor control rods

1979-81 Economic recession high inflation

In 1923, hafnium was discovered when Dirk Coster and George Charles von Hevesey separated it from zirconium.

Anton Eduard van Arkel and Jan Hendrik de Boer first produced metal 2 years late r by using the crystal bar process—hafnium t etrachloride passed over a tungsten

filament (van Arkel and de Boer, 1925) . Hafnium and zirconium occur together in the ore mineral zircon. Until the 1940’s, fracti

onal crystallization of zirconium-hafnium compounds was used to produce limited quantities of hafnium

oxide and metal powder. In 1948, hafnium metal powder was quoted at $32 per gram ($32,000 per kilogram). Because ofthe high costs associated with this technique, a moreeconomical means was sought. Development of improved

methods to separate the two elements began in the 1940’s. In 1949, the price of hafnium metal powder dropped to $22 per gram ($22,000 per kilogram). That same year, Carbide &

Chemicals Corp., Oak Ridge, TN, developed a liquid-liquid

solvent e xtraction technique to remove hafnium from zirconium; technology that had grown out of the Manhattan Project (Powell, 1961). Commercial production of hafnium56 arose from the need to produce hafnium-free zirconium metal

for use in nuclear reactors. In 1950, a decision was made to

use zirconium in the prototype land-based Nautilus nuclear

reactor for future use in sub marines (Wilson and Staehle, 1960, p. 1). In 1951, hafnium was selected as the material to

be used in the reactor’s control rods.

Hafnium was an expensive laboratory metal in 1945 when development work on an improv e d magnesium-reduction

process (Kroll process) began at the U.S. Bureau of Mines’ (USBM) Northwest Electrodevelopment Experiment Station in Albany, OR (Etherington, Dalzell, and Lillie, 1955, p. 2).

A pilot plant to produce zirconium metal by using the Kroll process began operating in 1947 and was expanded in 1949, 1950, and twice in 1951 (Kroll, 1937; Kroll, Schlechten, and Yerkes, 1946; Kroll, Schlechten, and others, 1947; Kroll, Anderson, and others, 1948). It was not until 1951, however,

that the USBM facility produced several kilograms of hafnium

metal grading 28% hafnium and the balance zirconium. By yearend 1951, the USBM produced 3,916 kilograms (8,634 pounds) of hafnium oxide that was used to produce 1,395 kilograms (3,075 pounds) of hafnium sponge (Smith and Stephens, 1960, p. 84).

Hafnium’s commercial availa bility coincided with the expiration of U.S. Departm ent of Defense contracts for

nuclear reactors in 1962. The price remained stable at about $1 65 per kilogram ($75 per pound) for 15 years, and the

continued availability of the metal resulted from the growth and development of the commercial nuclear industry.

U.S. demand for hafnium declined in the 1990’s as no new orders for nuclear reactors were placed. Demand is primarily

for replacement parts and control rods in existing nuclear reactors and as an alloying agent in certain superalloys. References Cited

Etherington, H., Dalzell, R.C., and Lillie, D.W., 1955, Zirconium

and its applications to nuclear reactors, chap. 1 of Lustman, B.,

and Ker ze, F., Jr., eds., The metallurgy of zirconium: New York, McGraw-Hill, p. 1-18. Kroll, W.J., 1937 , The formation of titanium and zirconium:

Zeitschrift für Anorganishe und Allgemeine Chemie, v. 234, p. 42-50. Kroll, W.J., Schlechten, A.W., and Yerkes, L.A., 1946, Ductile zirconium from zircon sand: Transcripts of the Electrochemistry Society, v. 89, p. 365-376. Kroll, W.J., Schlec hten, A.W., Carmody, W.R., Yerkes, L.A., Holmes, H.P., and Gilbert, H.L., 1947, Recent progress in the

me tallurgy of malleable zirconium: Transcripts of the Electrochemistry Society, v. 92, p. 99-113. Kroll, W.J., Anderson, C. T., Holmes, H.P., Yerkes, L.A., and Gilbert, H.L., 1948, Large scale laboratory product ion of

ductile zir conium: Transcripts of the Electrochemistry Society, v. 94, p. 1-20. Powell, J.E., 1961, Separation of rare earths by ion exchange, chap. 5 of Spedding, F.H., and Daane, A.H., eds., The rare earths: New York, John Wiley & Sons, p. 55-73.

S mith, E.W., and Stephens, W.W., 1960, Hafnium reduction

process, chap. 3 of Tho mas, D.E., and Hayes, E.T., eds., The metallurgy of hafnium: U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, p. 83-106.

van Arkel, A.E., and de Boer, J.H., 1925, Prepa ration of pure titanium, zirconium, hafnium, and thorium metal: Zeitschrift

für Anorganische und Allgemeine Chemie, v. 148, p. 345-350. Wilson, W.H., and Staehle, R.W., 1960, History of hafnium, chap.

1 of Thomas, D.E., and Hayes, E.T., eds., The metallurgy of hafnium: U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, p. 1-8.

Yearend Hafnium Sponge Metal Price (Dollars per kilogram 1 )

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1959 NA 1969 165.35 1979 181.88 1989 231.49

1960 88.18 1970 165.35 1980 181.88 1990 187.39

1961 88.18 1971 165.35 1981 214.95 1991 187.39

1962 88.18 1972 165.35 1982 214.95 1992 187.39

1963 165.35 1973 165.35 1983 214.95 1993 187.39

1964 165.35 1974 165.35 1984 231.49 1994 187.39

1965 165.35 1975 165.35 1985 231.49 1995 187.39

1966 165.35 1976 165.35 1986 231.49 1996 187.39

1967 165.35 1977 165.35 1987 187.39 1997 187.39

1968 159.84 1978 181.88 1988 231.49 1998 187.39

NA Not available

1 Prices are an average of a range, converted from pounds.

Source: American Metal Market.57 

### Annual Average Indium Price (Dollars per troy ounce)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars

Current dollars 

# In

Indium

by Robert D. Brown, Jr

Significant events affecting indium prices since 1958

1973-80 Period of high demand, significant increase for nuclear control rods

1979 Lower demand after nuclear powerplant accident at Three Mile Island

1980-82 Economic recessions

1985 Development of indium phosphide semiconductors and indium-tin-oxide thin films

1989 Indium added to National Defense Stockpile (NDS) acquisition plan

1992-94 NDS acquisition of indium

1995 Steady price increase owing to tight supply and strong demand

1996 Steady price decline owing to greater supply and significant recycling

1997 Release of more than half of NDS holdings

1997-98 Reduced demand owing to decrease in production of liquid crystal displays (LCD’s) and to shift to more-efficient

thin-film technology

Indium is produced mainly from residues generated during zinc ore processing. Prior to 1940, indium was used almost

entir e ly for experimental purposes, although domestic production had begun in 1926. Because of its rarity, about the same

as that of silver (Weeks, 1973, p. 242) and lack of industrial applications, indium was sold only in small quantities during

this period. The first commercial application came in 1933,

when small amounts of indium were added to certain gold

dental alloys. The Indium Corporation of America (ICA) was

founded in 1934 and became the major domestic producer.58 From 1940 through 1945, price s were usually determined through individual negotiations between the pr oducer and consumer (Ludwick, 1959, p. 9).

The first large-scale application for indium was as a coating

f or bearings in high-performance aircraft engines dur ing

World War II (Slat tery, 1995, p. 157). Indium increased

hardness and helped prevent seizure and corrosion of the bearings. After the war, production gradually increased as new uses were found in fusible alloys, solders, and

electronics. A producer price for indium was first established by the ICA in 1945, and it remained at the same level through

1963.

Durin g the period from 1973 through 1980, demand increased, especially for use in nuclear control rods, and easily

accessible supplies of raw materials gradually decreased. The

ICA depleted its source of feedstock in Bolivia and then obtained source material from Europe. The inability to meet
demand was the major factor in the pri c e reaching $20 per troy ounce during 1980, when the annual average price was $17. To increase supply, world producers expanded production capacities.

Orders for nuclear control rods dropped when the rate of

nucle ar power expansion decreased in the United States following the Three Mile Island accident in 1979. Increased production led to an oversupply during the recessions of the early 1980’s. By 1982, the price had plummeted to less than $3 per troy ounce (annual average was $3.19). In 1988, in

re sponse to growing demand, especially in the Japanese electronics industry, it climbed to nearly $10 per troy ounce. In the middle and late 1980’s, the development of indium phosphide semiconductors and indium-tin-oxide thin films for

LCD’s ar oused much interest. By 1992, the thin-film application had become the largest end use (Jasinski, 1993). In 1989, indium was included in the list of materials to be added to the NDS (Schmitt, 1989). The original stockpile goal was 42 metric tons; this was reduced to 7.7 tons in 1992. During th at same year, the Defense Logistics Agency,

manager of th e NDS, began purchasing indium. The NDS had acquired its highest level, 1.56 tons of indium, by 1994. According to the NDS Annual Materials Plan for 1996,

indium w as to be eliminated from the stockpile, but sales

would be limited to 1.1 metric tons per year (American Metal Market, 1997). Slightly more than this amount was sold in 1997, leaving the inventory at 0.44 ton, which was sold in

December 1998.

In 1995, a tight supply situation with strong demand forced

the price to increase steadily to a $16.25 per troy ounce high.

The following year, increased supply and the implementation

of an efficient recycling process forced prices back down to

a $6.53 per troy ounce l ow (Roskill Information Services Ltd., 1996, p. 34). This dramatic rise-and-fall is hidden in the annual average statistics, which indicate a drop of only $0.20

from 1995 to 1996.

In 1 998, indium demand slackened owing to the second successive year of somewhat lower LCD production and the introduction of a new thin-film coating technology that requires only one-third as much indium per unit as the older

process (Roskill Information Services Ltd., 1998, p. 2). After fluctuating moderately in 1997, the price was quite steady in

1998.

References Cited

American Metal Mark

e t, 1997, DLA planning sale of indium: American Metal Market, v. 105, no. 35, February 20, p. 12. Jasinski, S.M., 1993, Indium, in Mineral Commodity Summaries 1993: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 84-85. Ludwick, M.T., 1959, Indium, discovery, occur rence, development, and characteristics: Utica, NY, Indium Corporation of America, 770 p.

Roskill Information Services Ltd., 1996, The economics of indium: London, Roskill Information Services Ltd., 111 p.
——1998, Indium—Prices may fall: Roskill’s Letter from Japan, no. 270, October, p. 2. Schmitt, Bill, 1989, Pentagon report urges stockpiling of indium, rhodium, and ruthenium: American Metal Market, v. 97, no. 78, April 21, p. 1. Slattery, J.A., 1995, Indiu m and indium compounds, i n KirkOthmer encyclopedia of chemical technology (4 th ed.): New York, John Wiley, v. 14, p. 155-160. Weeks, R.A., 1973, Gallium, germanium, and indium, in Brobst,
D.A., and Pratt, W.P., eds., United States mineral resources: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 820, p. 237-246.59 Annual Average Indium Price 1 (Dollars per troy ounce 2 )

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1936 30.00 1952 2.25 1968 2.50 1984 3.00

1937 30.00 1953 2.25 1970 2.50 1985 2.63

1938 30.00 1954 2.25 1970 2.50 1986 2.61

1939 30.00 1955 2.25 1971 2.50 1987 7.30

1940 23.00 1956 2.25 1972 2.50 1988 9.92

1941 12.50 1957 2.25 1973 1.77 1989 8.55

1942 22.50 1958 2.25 1974 4.42 1990 7.15

1943 12.50 1959 2.25 1975 5.67 1991 6.78

1944 8.75 1960 2.25 1976 8.03 1992 7.01

1945 4.88 1961 2.25 1977 9.77 1993 6.43

1946 2.25 1962 2.25 1978 8.56 1994 4.44

1947 2.25 1963 2.25 1979 13.48 1995 12.06

1948 2.25 1964 2.40 1980 17.00 1996 11.86

1949 2.25 1965 2.75 1981 7.53 1997 9.93

1950 2.25 1966 2.75 1982 4.18 1998 9.52

1951 2.25 1967 2.75 1983 3.19

1 99.97%-pure indium.

2 To convert to dollars per kilogram, multiply by 32.1507.

Note: 1936-66, Indium Corporation of America, producer price. 1967-93, U.S. producer price, in Metals Week (through June 14, 1993). 1993-98, U.S. producer price, in Platt’s Metals Week.(This page intentionally left blank.)61 

### Annual Average Hot-Rolled Steel Bar Price (Dollars per one hundred pounds)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars

Current dollars 

# Fe

Iron and Steel

by Michael Fenton

Significant events affecting steel prices since 1958

1965 The rise of scrap-based minimills and continuous casters begins

1970 Beginning of energy crisis

1971-74 Price controls in effect

1973 Peak raw steel and pig iron production and peak scrap consumption by steel mills; export restrictions imposed

1974 Peak scrap consumption (steel mills + ferrous foundries)

1989 First thin-slab continuous caster for flat-rolled steel products begins operating at minimill facility

1990 U.S. exports and imports of ferrous scrap reach record highs

1997 Start of the Asian financial crisis

Of the metallic elements, iron is the most useful and most abundant, as well as the cheapest. The term “iron” refers to alloys that contain too much carbon to be formable by forging

or rolling. The term “steel” refers to an alloy of iron that is

malleable in some temperatu r e ranges and contains

m anganese, carbon, and often other alloying elements. Hundreds of individual alloy specifications known as “grades”

have been developed to produce co mbinations of strength, ductility, hardness, toughness, magnetic permeability, and

corrosion resistance to meet the need of modern consumers.

The ability of steel to be permanently deformed by plastic working allows it to be formed into many shapes and sizes62 (Lankford and others, 1985, p. 773). Principal methods of

hot and cold steel working are hammering, pressing, piercing, extrusion, rolling, drawing, and forging.

Steel products are priced by a system of “base prices” and

“extras”. In general, each producer specifies a base price for

each product form that

it manufactures. For example, a producer of carbon steel cold-rolled sheets would specify a

base pric e for that product. In addition, the producer specifies completely the range of thickness, width, and other properties that are covered by the base price. If a customer’s requirements are for material thicker, thinner, wider, or

narrower than the base range, an extra charge is added.

Extras are also added for such requirements as cut-length (as opposed to sheets in coil form), special drawing quality, small

orders (e.g., less than 20,000 pounds of a single item), and other requirements, depending upon the product form.

The cost of tr ansportation from the producer to the

customer is a significant consideration. As a result, a producer often will adjust his price to match a customer’s

delivered price from a more proximate producer. When such

an adju stment is made, the customer’s cost is the same, regardless of the location of the shipping mill; the result for

the steel producer is a lower realized price when shipping to a customer located closer to another producing mill.

Steel prices are usually quoted by weight. For many products, how ever, there is a provision for calculating the weight of a shipment so that a customer is re quired to pay only for the theoretical weight of the product rather than the

actual weight, which normally is more than the theoretical weig ht because of allowable manufacturing variations.

Discounts from the quoted price are often available. In recent

years, discounts of as much as 25% have been described for some products at times.

Price indices of groups of steel products have been reported by the major trade publications to show at a glance

the overall movem ent of steel prices since 1897 (American Metal Market) and 1926 (Iron Age). For the purpose of this publication, hot-rolled carbon steel bar was selected because

it has been produced continuously since the adoption of the

Bessemer steelmaking process in 1875; its historical price

series is indicative of prices for the range of steel products;

and its price does not incorporate the cost of extensive processing after hot rolling.

For the entire period of this review, except during World War I, prices of hot-rolled carbon steel bar fluctuated within

a narrow $8.00 range, in constant dollar terms. During World

W ar I, steep price increases brought about price controls,

which were also imposed on the industry during World War

II (Campbell, 1948). During the 1960’s, prices in current dollars, increased very slowly, but the energy crisis of 1970

started a period of rapid pr i ce escalation as energy costs of

steel companies increased rapidly and inflation dominated the

economy. Wages of steel industry workers were automatically increased because of inflation protection clauses in

their union contracts. Price increases were necessary to keep pace with rapidly escalating costs. From 1971-through 1974, price controls were instituted in an attempt to halt price inflation, but were abandoned when they proved ineffective and administratively infeasible. During the early 1970’s, a new approach t o steelmaking gained prominence that caused record highs in steel production (1973) and scrap consumption (1974). Small steel plants were erected to produce simple products such as hotrolled bars of steel. The first plants began production in

1965. These new plants, called minimills, did not have blast

furnaces to proce ss iron ore, but instead modern electric

furnaces and continuous casters were u sed to melt ferrous

scrap and cast th e raw steel into products at the lowest possible cost. Competition with blast-furnace-based steel

mills increased as thin-slab continuous casting equipment was adopted, first in 1989, to produce products at thinner gauges

with ever improving quality at increasingly lower costs (American Metal Market, 1997; 33 Metal Producing, 1998).

Minimills have been able to capture a significant share of the

m arket by setting prices that the previously dominant steel companies were unable to match.

O ne of the relatively simple products that the minimill

com panies have come to dominate is hot-rolled steel bar.

Discounts from the quoted prices have been widely available,

and this was especially true during the late 1970’s and early

1980’s as minimill companies gained dominance of the market

for hot-rolled steel bar. In 1984, the major steel mills stopped revising their quoted prices. In 1987, American Metal Market

discontinued the publication of the major mill price and began

to report the quoted prices of the minimills, which were more representative of market transaction prices. This change was

marked by the 29 percent drop in the quoted price, to $17.12.

The f irst half of the 1990’s were years of increasing domestic demand for steel products and increasing domestic capacity to satisfy this demand. U.S. exports and imports of

ferrous scrap reached record highs in 1990, but there was still

a trade def

icit. By 1997, the American Iron and Steel

Institute (AISI) reported an indirect steel-trade surplus of 1.1

million metric tons, the first surplus since AISI began tracking

the measurement in 1984 and perhaps since the late 1970’s (American Iron and Steel Institute, 1998). This surplus

confirmed that U.S. manufacturers were among the world’s most competitive producers of high-quality, steel-containing goods in 1997. Despite rising domestic steel mill capacity, imports of

semifinishe d steel increased significantly in 1993; these imports were needed to make up for the domestic shortage of

hot metal capacity in order to satisfy the U.S. market demand

for finished steel mill products. Domestic producers were

also unable to keep up with demand for finis hed steel products. An unfavorable currency exchange rate made foreign steel prices much more competitive.

A financial crisis bega n in Asia in 1997 when Thailand

devalued its currency (Garino, 1999). Prospering economies

in China, H ong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, the Republic of63 Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Tai w an, and Thailand were seriously weakened. Steel consumption began to decline in

these countries as they imported less steel and canceled some

new steel production projects. Generally, significant production decreases were not feasible because sal es were needed to repay loans granted by the International Monetary

Fund to support the economies of th ese countries (Becker, 1998). Throughout 1998, the United States was the recipient of large quantities of inexpensive semifinished steel imports. Declining prices adversely affected domestic steel producers,

who filed antidumping law suits and appealed for the implementation of steel import quotas. The combination of

weak steel demand in the Pacific Basin, a strong dollar, and falling world export prices may continue to cause importation of low-priced steel into the United States to the detriment of

domestic steelmakers. References Cited

American Iron and Steel In stitute, 1998, AISI issues report on

1997 U.S. indirect steel trade—Firs t surplus achieved in 14

years of tracking: Washington, D.C., American Iron and Steel Institute press release, April 15, 2 p.

American Metal Market, 1997, Minis playing hot band hand: American Metal Market, v. 105, no. 27, February 7, p. 1. Becker, George, 1998, Steel import woe s have deep roots: American Metal Market, v. 106, no. 208, October 29, p. 10. Campbell, R.F., 1948, The history of basic metals price control

in World War II: New York, Columbia University Press, 263

p. Garino, R.J., 1999, Bull or bear, place your bets: Scrap, v. 56, no. 1, January/February, p. 44. Lankford, W.T., Jr., Samways, N.L., Craven, R.F., McGannon, H.E., ed., 1985, The making, shaping and treating of steel: Pittsburgh, PA, Herbick & Held, 1572 p.

33 Metal Produ c ing, 1998, Mini-mills moving up: 33 Metal Producing, v. 36, no. 1, January, p. 34.

Annual Average Hot-Rolled Steel Bar Price (Dollars per one hundred pounds 1 )

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1897 0.99 1923 2.33 1949 3.35 1975 11.43

1898 0.95 1924 2.20 1950 3.47 1976 11.32

1899 1.95 1925 2.04 1951 3.70 1977 12.68

1900 1.61 1926 1.99 1952 3.78 1978 14.01

1901 1.44 1927 1.84 1953 4.05 1979 14.01

1902 1.58 1928 1.87 1954 4.22 1980 16.20

1903 1.56 1929 1.92 1955 4.47 1981 16.95

1904 1.33 1930 1.73 1956 4.81 1982 17.23

1905 1.48 1931 1.63 1957 5.25 1983 20.25

1906 1.51 1932 1.58 1958 5.35 1984 22.08

1907 1.60 1933 1.64 1959 5.68 1985 24.10

1908 1.48 1934 1.81 1960 5.68 1986 24.10

1909 1.31 1935 1.80 1961 5.68 1987 17.12

1910 1.43 1936 1.92 1962 5.68 1988 17.25

1911 1.26 1937 2.40 1963 5.74 1989 19.60

1912 1.25 1938 2.35 1964 5.93 1990 20.43

1913 1.38 1939 2.19 1965 5.93 1991 20.60

1914 1.15 1940 2.15 1966 5.89 1992 17.48

1915 1.31 1941 2.15 1967 5.92 1993 18.44

1916 2.48 1942 2.15 1968 6.14 1994 18.95

1917 3.49 1943 2.15 1969 6.56 1995 18.95

1918 2.89 1944 2.15 1970 6.98 1996 18.95

1919 2.43 1945 2.21 1971 7.89 1997 19.75

1920 2.99 1946 2.47 1972 7.13 1998 18.75

1921 1.89 1947 2.72 1973 8.38

1922 1.70 1948 3.09 1974 10.78

1 To convert to dollars per metric ton, multiply by 22.0462.

Note: 1897-February 1987, hot-rolled carbon steel bars merchant, Pittsburgh base, dollars per cwt., in American Metal Market. March 1987-1998, hot-rolled carbon SBQ (special bar quality) 1000 series, in American Metal Market.(This page intentionally left blank.)65 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars

Current dollars 

# Fe Iron and Steel Scrap

by Michael Fenton

Annual Average U.S. Steel Scrap Prices

(Dollars per metric ton)

Significant events affecting steel scrap prices since 1958

1965 The rise of scrap-based minimills and continuous casters begins

1973 Peak raw steel and pig iron production and peak scrap consumption by steel mills, price controls and export

restrictions imposed

1974 Peak scrap consumption (steel mills + ferrous foundries), export restrictions imposed

1989 First thin-slab continuous caster for flat-rolled steel products begins operating at minimill facility

1990 U.S. exports and imports of ferrous scrap reach record highs

Asian financial crisis begins

Iron and steel (ferrous) scrap is generated within steel mills

and foundries (home scrap) or industrial plants (prompt or

industrial scrap) while fabricating new iron and steel products

and objects discarded because of obs olescence (obsolete scrap). Ferrous scrap recycling is a complex industry that is dependent on the vigor of the two maj or consumers of scrap—steel mills and ferrous foundries. Thousands of scrap

facilities employ ten s of thousands of people to collect, process, and distribute scrap in several regional U.S. markets and the international export market.

In a free-market economy when Government pr i ce controls

are not in effect, scrap prices react quickly to changes in supply and, especially, demand. When demand for steel mill

and foundry products is low, demand for scrap is low, and prices fall. Dealers cannot influence sales of scrap if mills and

foundries do not need it to charge their furnaces. Dealers can66 hold back some scrap from mills and foundries when prices

are below their costs to purchase and process it. Scrap generated by industrial plants, however, must be disposed of

each month to the highest bidder to ma ke room for more

scrap. Prices are also influenced by technological changes in

steel mills and foundries, processing and upgrading to desired physical and chemical qualities, the use of scrap substitutes,

environmental controls a nd other Government laws and regulations, and export demand. Scrap metal prices quoted in major trade publications, such as American Metal Market,

have been considered by many economists to be an excellent

barometer of current industrial demand. Of particular interest is the No. 1 Heavy Melting Steel (No. 1) composite price of

three cities C Chicago, IL, Philadelphia, PA, and Pittsbur g h,

PA C which has been recor ded by American Metal Market

since 1907. During the past 90 years, the price of No. 1 responded to supply-and-demand forces in a free-market ec onomic environment, and price fluctuations were sometimes dramatic

from year to year. The Great Depression (1929-33) was a time of declining manufacturing activity with all-time record

lows in demand and prices for scrap fr om 1931 to 1933. During World Wars I and II, demand increased to the point

that the Government adopted price controls to halt scrap price inflation (Campbell, 1948). The price of No. 1 nearly tripled

as a result of high demand during Worl d War II. The

Government

also adopted price controls during the Korean

conflict. During the early 1970’s , a new approach to steelmaking gained prominence, which caused record highs in steel production (1973) and scr ap consumption (1974). New,

comp aratively smaller steel plants were built to produce simple products, such as hot-rolled bars of steel. These new plants, called minimills, did not have blast furnaces to process iron ore; instead, modern electric furn a ces and continuous

casters were used to melt ferrous scrap and to cast the raw steel into products at the lowest p o ssible cost (Iron and Steelmaker, 1998). Minimills have been able to capture a significa nt share of the market by setting prices that the previously dominant steel companies were unable to match. By 1990, U.S. exports and imports of ferrous scrap to feed

minimills built in the United States and abroad reached record highs. Ferrous scrap prices declined significantly during 1991 as domestic and world demand for scrap decreased. Domestic

demand began to increase during 1992, and world demand

remained weak. The period from 1993 to the first half of

1997 was one of strengthening demand for ferrous scrap and rising prices. Developing countries in Asia, Eastern Europe,

and Latin America experienced significant economic growth.

Minimill capac ity increased worldwide, and integrated steel mills increased efficiency and scrap usage.

A financial crisis bega n in Asia in 1997 when Thailand

devalued its currency. Prospering economies in China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, the Rep u blic of Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, and Thailand were seriously weakened.

Asian ferrous scrap purchases decreased, and prices of scrap declined, which adversely affected the domestic scrap industry (Gavaghan, 1998). By the end of 1998, prices had stabilized at a level about $40 per ton below the price level of the first half of the year.

References Cited

Campbell, R.F., 1948, The history of basic metals price control

in World War II: New York, Columbia University Press, 263

p. Gavaghan, B.P., 1998, World steel in dustry faces uncertain

economic future: Iron and Steelmaker, v. 25, no.12, December, p. 25-26.

Iron and Steelmaker, 1998, I&SM continuous caster roundup: Iron and Steelmaker, v. 25, no. 11, p. 14-31.67 Annual Average U.S. Steel Scrap Price 1

(Dollars per metric ton)

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1907 16.27 1930 13.25 1953 39.27 1976 76.74

1908 13.40 1931 9.58 1954 28.29 1977 63.05

1909 15.49 1932 7.29 1955 39.12 1978 75.92

1910 14.48 1933 9.20 1956 52.61 1979 97.41

1911 12.20 1934 10.74 1957 46.36 1980 91.42

1912 13.08 1935 11.52 1958 37.21 1981 91.86

1913 11.94 1936 14.48 1959 37.09 1982 62.72

1914 10.33 1937 17.63 1960 32.68 1983 71.76

1915 12.07 1938 13.21 1961 35.80 1984 86.52

1916 17.13 1939 15.95 1962 27.89 1985 68.93

1917 28.62 1940 18.22 1963 26.47 1986 73.00

1918 28.11 1941 19.12 1964 35.92 1987 84.41

1919 18.05 1942 18.87 1965 33.73 1988 107.26

1920 23.57 1943 18.87 1966 30.18 1989 105.61

1921 12.46 1944 18.33 1967 27.19 1990 105.46

1922 15.58 1945 18.84 1968 25.53 1991 91.79

1923 18.89 1946 19.83 1969 30.08 1992 84.67

1924 16.91 1947 35.08 1970 44.24 1993 112.44

1925 16.91 1948 40.89 1971 33.92 1994 126.82

1926 15.33 1949 27.06 1972 36.05 1995 135.03

1927 13.94 1950 34.78 1973 56.76 1996 130.60

1928 14.13 1951 42.46 1974 106.13 1997 130.45

1929 15.97 1952 41.23 1975 71.37 1998 108.30

1 Composite price of No. 1 Heavy Melting Steel scrap at Chicago, IL, Philadelphia, PA, and Pittsburgh, PA, (three-city average). As defined by the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc., No. 1 Heavy Melting Steel is wrought iron and/or steel scrap 1⁄4 inch and more in thickness. Individual pieces not more than 60 x 24 inches (changing box size) are prepared in a manner to ensure compact charging.

Source: American Metal Market.(This page intentionally left blank.)69 

### Annual Brazilian Iron Ore Pellet Price (U.S. dollars per metric ton contained iron)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars

Current dollars



### Annual Brazilian Iron Ore Fines Price (U.S. dollars per metric ton contained iron)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars

Current dollars 

# Fe

Iron Ore

by William S. Kirk70 Significant events affecting iron ore prices since 1958

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

1981-82 Sharp recession

1997 Beginning of the Asian financial crisis

Iron ore is used to make iron and steel. Iron is the most useful, abundant, and cheapest of the metallic elements. In metallurgical terms, “iron” refers to alloys that contain too much carbon to be formable by forging or rolling. The term

“steel” refers to an alloy of iron that is malleable at some

temperature ranges and contains carbon, mangan ese, and

often some other alloying elements. Steel is made by using the blast furnace/basic oxygen furnace (BF/BOF) process or

the electric arc furnace (EAF) process. The BF/BOF process

first makes iron by smelting iron ore in a blast furnace and

then using that iron to m ake steel in a BOF. In the EAF

process, iron and steel scrap and often direct reduced iron are melted to produce steel. Almost all (98%) iron ore is used to make iron and steel so its price is determined by what steelmakers are willing to pay

for it and that is based on how the ore behaves in the ironmaking process—whether it raises or lowers the cos ts of producing steel. The behavior of iron ore in the iron-making process is determined by its chemical composition and by its

structure or form, both of which affect blast furnace productivit y. The chemical constituents that affect the productivity of a blast furnace are iron content, levels of the

undesirable substances silica and alumina, moisture and impurities, and levels of the desirable substances limestone

and dolomite.

The forms that affect blast furnac e productivity—fines (fine ores), lump, and pellets—are also the primary m arket products. Minor quantities of iron ore concentrate are also

sold. Fines are defined as iron ore with the majority of

individual particles measuring less than 4.75 millimeters (3/16 inch) diameter. Conversely, lump is iron ore with the majority of individual particles measuring more than 4.75

millimeters diameter. Fines and lump are produced from the

same ore and are separated by screening and sorting. Neither product is concentrated. Pellets, the third product type (form), begin as a fined-grained concentrate. A binder, often clay, is added to the concentrate, which is then rolled into balls. The balls then pass through a furnace where they are

indurated and become pellets, usually measuring from 9.55 to 16.0 millimeters (3/8-5/8 inch). Although fines and lump ores cost about the same to prod uce, fines fetch lower prices than lump because they

must be sintered by the steel mill before they can be charged

to the blast furnace. This is done to improve permeability of

the furnace burden and to prevent loss of fines up the stack.

Pellets can be charged directly into the blast furnace as can lump ore, but the latter can decrepitate in the furnace, thereby lowering its value to the steel mill operator. Pellets are usually

the most desirable form of iron ore because they contribute

the most to the productivity of the blast furnace. Lump ore

is the next most desirable ore in terms of blast furnace productivity. The least desirable form is fines, which must be agglomerated (sintered), usually by the ste elmaker, before being charged to the blast furnace.

If the chemistry and structure of an iron ore are favorable,

then iron- and steel-making costs are reduced, and the

steelmaker is willing to pay a higher per-unit price for this ore than for one with less favorable properties. Although an ore with a high iron co ntent and good structure is desirable for increasing productivity in a blast furnace, preference may be given to a lower quality ore if the p rice is low enough to

compensate for its less favorable characteristics. No such flexibility occurs in direct reduction, where ore-quality

parameters are very stringent. The direct reduction process uses pellets and lump with chemical characteristics that have historically supported a price premium over bl ast furnace grades. Fines-based direct reduction processes are now under development.

A steelmaker’s preference for pellets over fines is reflected

in the prices. From 1976 through 1998, the average price for

Brazilian fines was $27.03 per metric ton; and the average for

Brazilian pellets was $44.31 per metric ton. Although iron ore prices rose during the 1976 to 1998 period, when adjusted for inflation, they fell

considerably. The price for fines in

constant dollars declined by 53.2% and the price for pellets in

constant dollars dropped by 56.2%. The inflation adjustment

factor used w as the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI) from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The CPI was rebased to 1992.

Another factor that affects which form of iron ore used is

steel demand. When demand is low, European and Japanese

steelmakers switch to fines because they do not have to be concerned with productivity targets. In a tight market, more pellets and lump are consumed.

Until the 1980’s, there were two international iron ore price

structures, each related to a specific geographic area: North

America and the other market economy countries (Franz, Stenberg, and Strongman, 1986). In North America, more

than three-quarters of iron ore production capacity was owned directly by its consumers, the integrated steel companies. These equity ownership conditions led to stable “cost-plus” pricing, meaning the iron ore producers were paid71 what it cost them to produce the ore, plus royalty and management fees. Prior to this, there was very little need to be competitive (Marcus, Kirsis, and Kakela,1996). Demand

was high, and the North Americ a n iron ore industry was growing, as it had for 25 years. Pellet capacity expanded steadily from its first commercialization in 1955 to a pe a k capacity of 127 million metric tons in 1980.

In 1982, major structural changes occurred in the domestic

iron ore industry , one of which was the development of a

U.S. spot market for pellets. Most spot sales are individually negotiated, one-time contracts made directly between buyer

and seller. The spot market led to the beginning of price competition and a winding down of the Lower Lakes pricing

system, which had served the iron ore industry for 100 years. Previously, only annual sales, multiyear contracts, or equity ownership transactions existed. The North American iron ore industry had to cut capacity and lower pr ices to make

domestic ore competitive with imported material. This meant

that the industry had to lower production c osts to stay in business, which wa s done by greatly improving labor productivity, reducing wage s, negotiating lower cost power

contracts and royalty agreements, pressing suppliers to reduce prices for materials, lobbying le g islators for tax breaks, and paying off debt. The results were dramatic. Domestic mines

cut costs by 30%, reduced capacity by one-third, and lowered prices by 42%. Domestic producers are continuing their

efforts to reduce costs. The spot market has persisted and,

with the reduction of steel mill ownership of iron ore mines to about 63%, has grown stronger. Exported iron ore is tr aded in the seaborne market, and prices are determined by market forces. Two iron ore price lists, one for prices of ore to Europe and the other for prices to Japan are widely published. All iron ore is priced in U.S. dollars, which facilitates comparison. The unit pricing system

is used with iron ore to accommodate variations in iron

content. Prices are quoted in U.S. cents per ton unit of iron.

A unit is 1/100, or 1%, of the weight of a ton of iron so that

1 metric ton unit corresponds to 1/100th of a metric ton. This

means that a steelmaker that buys 1 ton of ore that is about

65% iron is paying for 1 ton of iron contained in that ore and

will receive about 11⁄2 tons of ore.

These prices are usually set during le ngthy negotiations

between Brazilian iron ore producers an d German steelmakers and between Australian producers and Japanese

steelmakers. Australia and Brazil with roughly equal shares

dominate the export market, have a combined share of world iron ore exports of 62%; the next largest exporter has only a

6% share. Europe and Japan, with roughly equal shares, have

a combined share of world imports of 57%; the next largest importer has 12%. The price agreed on for ore to Europe is applicable for the calendar year effective January 1 st of that

year. For ore sold to Japan, prices are set for the Japanese fiscal year, which begins on April 1 st and ends on March 31 st

. The price for iron ore fines is usually settled first because it is

the predominant type of ore used in Europe and Japan.

Prices for pellets and lump ore are then set based on the fines prices.

The steel recession that was the result of the OPEC oil embargo created downward pressure on iron ore prices that

can be seen in the Brazilian fines price for 1978, the lowest

level of the 1976- through-1998 period (See price tables). As

the world economy recovered, iron ore prices peaked in 1982.

Prices then dropped as the 1981-82 recession combined with major increases in iron ore production capacity in Australia, Brazil, and Venezuela created a situation of oversu pply. During this period, one U.S. steelmaker permanently closed 16% of its production capacity. U.S. iron ore production fell

from 73.4 million tons in 1981 to 36.0 million tons in 1982.

Prices continued to fall until 1989, when economic

conditions began to improve . Decreasing steel production caused prices to fall until 1994 when they began rising as the world steel industry enjoyed a number of years of increased production. In 1997, domestic steelmakers increased shipments for the si

x th consecutive year, the longest

consecutive increase ever. During the second half

of 1998, the U.S. steel industry

became a victim of the world’s growing fina n cial crisis (Hogan, 1999). With the spread of the Asian economic recession, steel de m and and export opportunities were curtailed within t he region and Asian steel producers, particularly in Japan and the Republic of Korea , started to divert more of their products for export, much of it aimed at the United States. Despite high demand for steel, U.S. steel shipments declined by about 3%. Lower steel production in

the United States and the rest of the world in 1998 caused the

Brazilian fines price for 1999 to fall to $26.96, a decrease of

9.2%.

References Cited

Franz, Juergen, Stenberg, Bo, and Strongman, John, 1986, Iron

ore—Global prospects for the industry, 1985-95: World Bank Industry and Finance Series, v. 12, p. 32. Hogan, W.T., 1999, Iron and steel—A historic year for steel: Engineering & Mining Journal, v. 199, no. 3, p. 74-78.
Marcus, P.F., Kirsis, K.M, and Kakela, P.J.,1996, North American

iron o r e industry—Opportunities and threats: PaineWebber

World Steel Dynamics Core Report, January, variously paginated.72 Annual Brazilian Iron Ore Pellet Price 1 (U.S. dollars per metric ton contained iron)

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1976 43.80 1982 47.50 1988 40.35 1994 43.64

1977 42.80 1983 39.00 1989 47.33 1995 49.14

1978 36.40 1984 36.00 1990 51.60 1996 52.40

1979 39.96 1985 36.00 1991 52.15 1997 52.10

1980 47.05 1986 36.60 1992 48.47 1998 53.56

1981 43.05 1987 36.70 1993 43.64

1 Prices are for Brazilian iron ore pellets sold to Europe, f.o.b. Tubaro terminal, Southern System, Cia. Vale do Rio Doce.

Source: TEX Report Co. Ltd., Iron ore manual, [various years].

Annual Brazilian Iron Ore Fines Price 1 (U.S. dollars per metric ton contained iron)

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1976 22.70 1982 32.50 1988 23.50 1994 24.47

1977 23.00 1983 29.00 1989 26.56 1995 26.95

1978 21.50 1984 26.15 1990 30.80 1996 28.57

1979 23.30 1985 26.56 1991 33.25 1997 28.88

1980 28.10 1986 26.26 1992 31.62 1998 29.69

1981 28.10 1987 24.50 1993 28.14

1 Prices are for Brazilian iron ore fines sold to Europe, f.o.b. Tubaro terminal, Southern System, Cia. Vale do Rio Doce.

Source: TEX Report Co. Ltd., Iron ore manual, [various years].73 

## Annual Average Lead Price (Dollars per pound)

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars
Current dollars 

# Pb

Lead

by Gerald R. Smith

Significant events affecting lead prices since 1958

1961-1969 Lead and Zinc Mining Stabilization Program in effect

1971-1973 Price controls

1976-1979 Post-Vietnam War boom—highest historical price

1982-1986 More stringent environmental controls imposed on production 1986-1991 Industry retrenchment—attendant cost reductions 1992-1996 Increasing demand, particularly in lead-acid battery sector 1997-1998 Moderate weather in more populated regions—demand for replacement automotive batteries slowed

Lead is a very dense, ductile, malleable, corrosion resistant, blue-gray metal that has been used for at least 5,000 years. Early uses of lead were in building materials, water pipes, and pigments for glazing. The castles and cathedrals of Europe

contain consid erable quantities of lead in roofs, windows, pipes, and decorative fixtures (She a, 1996, p. 1). In the

United States, lead was first mined in Vir ginia in 1621. During the colonial period, mining was carried out in New York, North Carolina, and several New England States. By

the l ate 1860's, most of the mine production of lead came

from the lower and upper Miss issippi Valley regions. A westward expansion of mining began soon thereafter. Many gold and silver mines were developed, some of which contained significant concentrations of lead. In addition, the74 Missouri Lead Belt, in southeastern Missouri, was developed,

as well as the Tri-State Lead District, which included Kansas,

Missouri and Oklahoma. By the late 1950’s, depletion of lead

reserves in the Lead Belt and discontinuation of mining in the

Tri-State region, encouraged the discovery and development of the Viburnum Trend mining region in southeast Missouri,

thus establishing the framework of the curr ent domestic primary lead industry. Missouri has been the foremost leadmining State since 1907 and has retained that status throughout the century, except for 1962 when mine output was

curtailed by a prolonge d strike (Hofman, 1918, p. 1-6; Howe, 1980, p. 1-5). In conjunction with the mining of lead, numerous primary

lead smelters and refineries have been operated in the United

States since primary lead production was first recorded in

1825. By 1887, annual production of primary refined lead had reached 132,000 metric tons and had increased to a high

of 725,000 tons by 1926, representing 87% of the total

refined lead production. As the production of secondary lead increased, pro duction of refined lead from primary sources gradually decreased. In 1997, annual production of primary

refined lead was 343,000 tons, representing 24% of the total

refined l ead production. The price of primary refined lead

increased from $0.04 per pound in the early 1900’s to $0.12

per pound in 1959, reaching a high of about $0.18 per pound during the post-World War II economic boom from 1946 to

1948 and the Korean conflict in the early 1950’s. Between

1959 and 1973, lead prices remained fairly stable, ranging

from $0.12 to $0.16 per pound. This stabi lity was due, in

part, to the enactment of Public Law 87-374, the Lead and

Zinc Mining Stabilization Program, in 1961. The program,

which remained in effect through 1969, authorized payments

to qualifie d miners when the market price of lead dropped

below $0.145 per pound. In the early 1970’s, movement in

the price o f lead was restrained by anti-inflation price

controls.With the lifting of price controls in December 1973, the price of lead quickly increased, reaching a historic high in 1979 during the post-Vietnam War economic boom. By the

late 1990’s, the price of lead had increased tenfold compared

with the price at the beginning of the century. In terms of

1992 dollars, however, the price of primary refined lead was $0.39 per pound in 1998 compared with $0.59 per pound in

1959. Historically, lead has not been and is not a price-ela stic commodity. Its significant uses in any given era have not depended on price and, for the most part, other metals cannot
substitute for lead in these cases. Prior to the early 1900’s, uses of lead were primarily for shot, bullets, water lines and pipes, pewter, brass, gla zes, paints or other protective coatings, burial vault liners, and leaded glass or crystal. With

the advent of

the electrical age and communications

accelerated by technological developments in World War I,

cable lead and solders became preeminent. With the growth

in production of public and private motorized vehicles and the

associated use of starting-lighting-ignition (SLI) lead-acid

storage batteries and t erne metal for gas tanks after World

War I, demand for lead increased. In addition to their

continued use in SLI applications, new uses of storage

batteries have included motive sources of power for industrial forklifts, airport ground equipment, mining equipment, and a variety of other electrical-powered, non-road utility vehicles,

as well as stationary sources of power in industrial-type applications, such as uninterruptible electrical power supply

equ ipment for hospitals, computer and telecommunications networks, and load-leveling equipmen t for commercial

electrical po wer systems. Most of these uses continued to expand wit h the population and the national economy, and

total d emand accelerated further with electronic developments (primarily television and video display tubes) and demand for

leaded gasoline a fter World War II, peaking between 1977

and 1979. With the near phaseout of lead in gasoline, paints, solders, and water systems, and the imposition of expensive environmental production controls, the industry experienced

hard times between 1982 and 1986. However, the industry

made a dramatic r ecovery by the late 1980’s, owing to

massive retrenchment in the pr imary and secondary producing

sectors with attendant cost reductions, and to expa nsion in

demand for industrial-type battery systems, and record SLI battery shipments. Growth in the battery industry continued

into the 1990’s. By 1997, lead-acid storage batteries represented a record-high 87% of reported U.S. consumption of lead. Demand for lead in the battery sector is associated,

to a significant extent, with the demand for replacement automotive batteries. In 1997 and 1998, there was some softness in the price of lead owing to 2 consecutive years of moderate temperatures in the more-populated regions of the

United States that reduced the rate of failure of automotivetype batteries.

References Cited

Hofman, H.O., 1918, Metallurgy of lead: New York, McGrawHill, 664 p.
Howe, W.B., 1980, Viburnum Trend, Missouri—The geology and

ore deposits of selected mines: Rolla, Missouri Department of Natural Resources Report of Investigation 58, 56 p. Shea, E.E., 1996, Le ad regulation handbook: Rockville, MD, Government Institutes, Inc., 240 p.75 Annual Average Lead Price (Dollars per pound 1 )

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1909 0.043 1932 0.032 1955 0.151 1978 0.337

1910 0.044 1933 0.039 1956 0.160 1979 0.526

1911 0.044 1934 0.039 1957 0.147 1980 0.425

1912 0.045 1935 0.041 1958 0.121 1981 0.365

1913 0.044 1936 0.047 1959 0.122 1982 0.255

1914 0.039 1937 0.060 1960 0.119 1983 0.217

1915 0.047 1938 0.047 1961 0.109 1984 0.256

1916 0.069 1939 0.051 1962 0.096 1985 0.191

1917 0.088 1940 0.052 1963 0.111 1986 0.221

1918 0.074 1941 0.058 1964 0.136 1987 0.359

1919 0.058 1942 0.065 1965 0.160 1988 0.371

1920 0.080 1943 0.065 1966 0.151 1989 0.394

1921 0.045 1944 0.065 1967 0.140 1990 0.460

1922 0.057 1945 0.065 1968 0.132 1991 0.335

1923 0.073 1946 0.081 1969 0.149 1992 0.351

1924 0.081 1947 0.147 1970 0.157 1993 0.317

1925 0.090 1948 0.180 1971 0.139 1994 0.372

1926 0.084 1949 0.154 1972 0.150 1995 0.423

1927 0.068 1950 0.133 1973 0.163 1996 0.488

1928 0.063 1951 0.175 1974 0.225 1997 0.465

1929 0.068 1952 0.165 1975 0.215 1998 0.453

1930 0.055 1953 0.135 1976 0.231

1931 0.042 1954 0.141 1977 0.307

1 To convert to dollars per kilogram, multiply by 2.20462.

Note: 1909-36, Primary producer price, New York (Common lead, 99.94% pure), in Engineering and Mining Journal. 1937-66, Primary producer price, New York (Common lead, 99.94% pure), in E&MJ Metal and Mineral Markets. 1967-70, Primary producer price, New York (Common lead, 99.94% pure), in Metals Week. 1971-85, Primary producer price, delivered (Minimum 99.97% pure), in Metals Week. 1986-93, North American producer price, delivered (Minimum 99.97% pure), in Metals Week [through June 14, 1993]. 1993-99, North American producer price, delivered (Minimum 99.97% pure), in Platt’s Metals Week.(This page intentionally left blank.)77 

### Yearend Average Lithium Price (Dollars per pound)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars

Current dollars 

# Li

Lithium

by Joyce A. Ober

Produc tion of lithium minerals was first reported in the

Unite d States in 1898. Spodumene and amblygonite from

California and South Dakota were exported for conversion to
lithium chemicals. It was not until about 1916, during World War I, that lithium chemical production began in the United States (Schaller, 1917). Shortly after that, the United States

became the largest producer of lithium minerals and chemicals

in the world (Schaller, 1917). Dominant production sites

shifted from the original

States to North Carolina in 1942 (Broadhurst, 1956, p. 11) and Nevada in 1966 ( Skillings Mining Review, 1968). In 1976, the Bureau of Mines reported that the United States provided nearly 80% of the

world lith ium demand (Quan, 1976). In 1984, lithium

carbonate production began in Chile (Foote Prints, 1984). In

the past 2 years, lithium carbonate production has shifted

from the United State s to South America with two new operations coming onstream, a second operation in Chile in

1996 (Minsal S.A., 1996), and a facility in Argentina in 1997 (FMC Corp., 1999, p. 28). The majority of lithium end uses require lithium as one of its compounds rather than in the metallic form. Although a

fe w lithium chemicals require lithium metal for their production, the metal used to produce the chemical s is produced and converted by the same company and so is not

sold and does not enter the market or affect t h e prices of

commercial lithium metal products (Lithium Corporation of America, 1985, p. 4). The changes in lithium metal prices

appear to be independent of any significant events. Although

lithium metal prices were first reported in trade publications in 1952, demand was very low (Arundale and Mensch, 1952).

Small quantities were used as scavengers in the production of low-oxygen copper alloys, but other uses were just beginning to be investigated (Arundale and Mensch, 1952).

From 1952 to 1974, lithium prices remained flat in terms of current dollars; in terms of constant dollars, however, prices

decreased. The potential use of lithium in batteries for78 electric vehicles was first discussed in the Minerals Yearbook

in 1972 (Wininger, 1972). The downward trend in lithium

metal prices r eversed in 1974. At about the same time,

research efforts increased for identifying aluminum lithium alloys for use in aerospace applications. Increased demand

for lithium in bat teries and alloys resulted in steadily increasing lithium metal prices since that time.

The growth in the demand for lithium metal, however,

cannot be quantified. Because lithium has been a small industry with very few major pro ducers, published information on production and markets is hard to find. One

estimate places the use of lithium in batteries at 7% of the

lithium market of about 2,600 metric tons of contained lithium

in the United States in 1996. Lithium required for alloys is less than 2% of consumption (Harben and Edwards, 1997).

The use of lithium in batteries should continue to expand,

but not necessarily in the form of lithiu m metal. The requirement for lithium metal for those batteries may grow

more slowly as battery makers search for the optimum battery chemistry, balancing energy density, cost, and safety.

References Cited

Arundale, J.C., an d Mensch, F.B., 1952, Lithium, i n Minerals Yearbook 1952, v. I: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 650-659. Broadhurst, S.D., 1956, Lithium resources of North Carolina:

North Carolina Department of Conservation and Development Information Circular 15, 37 p. FMC Corp., 1999, FMC annual report 1998: FMC Corp., 56 p. Foote Prints, 1984, New lithium frontier in Chile: Foote Prints, v. 47, no. 1, p. 2-14.

Har b en, P.W., and Edwards, G.H., 1997, The global lithium industry—A portrait of rapid flux: JOM, v. 49, no. 6, p. 21-22,

68.

Lithium Corporation of America, 1985, Lithium: L ithium Corporation of America company report, 18 p.

Minsal S.A., 1996, First lithium carbonate precipitation at

Minsal: Santiago, Chile, Minsal S.A. press release, October 30, 1 p. Quan, C.K., 1976, Lithium, in Minerals Yearbook 1976, v. I: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 767-781. Schaller, W.T., 1917, Lithium minerals in 1916, i n Mineral

resources of the United States 1916: U.S. Geological Survey, pt. 2, p. 7-17. Skillings Mining R e view, 1968, Foote Mineral Co.’s lithium operation in Nevada: Skillings Mining R eview, v. 57, no. 3, January 20, p. 10. Wininger, D.C., 1972, Lithium, in Minerals Yearbook 1972, v. I: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 1362-1365.

Yearend Average Lithium Price (Dollars per pound 1 )

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1952 9.85 1964 9.00 1976 11.60 1988 26.70

1953 11.00 1965 9.00 1977 11.60 1989 28.30

1954 11.00 1966 7.50 1978 13.20 1990 30.00

1955 11.00 1967 7.50 1979 15.65 1991 31.50

1956 11.00 1968 7.50 1980 17.15 1992 32.45

1957 11.00 1969 7.75 1981 20.65 1993 33.60

1958 9.00 1970 8.18 1982 20.65 1994 35.98

1959 9.00 1971 8.18 1983 21.70 1995 39.05

1960 9.00 1972 8.18 1984 22.70 1996 40.60

1961 9.00 1973 8.18 1985 24.20 1997 43.33

1962 9.00 1974 9.38 1986 24.20 1998 43.33

1963 9.00 1975 11.10 1987 25.45

1 To convert to dollars per kilogram, divide by 0.454.

Note: 1952-57, 98%-pure lithium metal, in E&MJ Metal and Mineral Markets. 1958-65, 99.5%-pure lithium metal, in E&MJ Metal and Mineral Markets. 1966-71, Standard or technical grade lithium of at least 99.8% purity, in Oil, Paint, and Drug Reporter. 1972-77, Standard or technical grade lithium of at least 99.8% purity, in Chemical Marketing Reporter. 1978-90, Producers average list price for standard or technical grade lithium of at least 99.8% purity. 1991-94, Average of producer and published prices for standard or technical grade lithium metal of at least 99.8% purity, in Chemical Marketing Reporter. 1995-96, Producers’ average list price for standard or technical grade lithium of at least 99.8% purity. 1997-98, Standard or technical grade lithium of at least 99.8% purity, in Chemical Market Reporter.79 

### Yearend Primary Magnesium Price

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars
Current dollars 

### (Dollars per pound) 

# Mg Magnesium

by Deborah A. Kramer

Significant events affecting magnesium prices since 1958

1974-79 Increased energy costs and rapid inflation boost prices

1987-88 Tight supply of magnesium because of increased aluminum consumption

1991 Antidumping and countervailing duty investigations of magnesium imports from Canada initiated; dissolution of the

Soviet Union

1994 Antidumping duty investigation initiated on magnesium imports from China, Russia, and Ukraine

Because of its military applications, World War II brought increased demand for magnesium. From 1941 through 1944 supplies of magnesium were allocated to manufacturers of military components. Seven Government-owned plants were brought on-stream during World War II to supply the military demand, and prices were controlled from 1943 through 1945 by the Office of Price Administration.

After the end of the War, the price controls were lifted, and consumer demand was not great enough to sustain the wartime production levels. The rearmament program, between 1947 and 1953, brought a rise in consumption, but when military supplies were replenished, demand declined significantly, and the Government-owned plants were closed.

Bec ause the large demand was not sustained, prices after

World War II remained constant.

In the 1950’s and early 1960’s magnesium prices remained80 steady. Development of new rolling techniques and new alloys helped increase magnesium’s usage, particularly in machinery and transportation equipment. By maintaining magnesium’s price at a constant level, these industries were encouraged to use mag

n esium components. From 1964 through 1974, magnesium that had been acquired for the

National Defense Stockpile in the early 1950’s was released

beca use magnesium was removed from the list of strategic

and critic al materials. This stockpile release provided an

additional sou rce of magnesium to supply the growing demand, which kept prices stable.

In 1974, a combination of increa sed energy costs, rising

inflation rates, and the surge in use of aluminum beverage

cans, which contain magnesium, l ed to a dramatic price

increase. The price of magnesium nearly doubled within 1

year. Effects of rapid inflation rates continued to be felt through the remainder of the 1970’s and i nto the early

1980’s. As inflation rates decreased, the price of magnesium

stabilized. In 1987 and 1988, magnesium supplies tightened as aluminum consump tion increased. Because magnesium’s principal use was as an alloying addition to aluminum, its use was directly related to aluminum consumption. In addition, high-purity magnesium alloys were developed as a measure to
increase domestic consumption, particularly in automobiles. This supply shortage led to increased magnesium prices from

1987 to 1988. In early 1990, North American production increased with

the opening of a new 40,000-metr i c-ton-per-year plant in

Canada (Metals Week, 1990). Much of the Canadian production was imported into the United States, alleviating the supply shortage. As a result, producers’ quoted prices dropped in 1990, and by the end of 1991, press reports

indicated that the actual selling price of primary magnesium

was about $1.10 to $1.20 per pound. These low prices prompted one of the U.S. producers to request countervailing

and a ntidumping duty investigations into imports of magnesium from Canada in September 1991; as a result of

this action, magnesium imports from Canada essenti ally

ceased.

With the dissolution of the former Soviet Union at the end of 1991, however, new suppliers entered the world market.

Because of stockpiles that had been built up over many years, Russia and Ukraine had significant quantities of magnesium available to exchange for hard currency in the world market.

In spite of the cessation of magnesium imports from Canada, U.S. imports were strong because of the increased supply of

m etal, particularly from Russia. As a result, U.S. prices dropped significantly in 1992, and a two-tier price system was established—a U.S. import price and a U.S. transaction price, which reflected the prices charged by the U.S. producers. By mid-1992, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) had established antidumping and countervailing duties

on magnesium imported from Canada, so this material essentially was eliminated from the U.S. market (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992). Imports of magnesium from Canada were approximately replaced by imports from Russia, so the change in U.S. magnesium supplies was not significant, and as a result, the U.S. price moderated during

1992 and 1993.

Low unit values for magnesium imported from Russia and

Ukraine prompted one U.S. producer to request an antidumping duty investigation of magnesium imports from these

two countries, as well a s from China, in mid-1994. This

res ulted in a cessation of magnesium imports from these

countries. As domestic demand, mostly for magnesium

components for automotive applicati o ns, continued to
incr ease, the elimination of imported magnesium from Canada, China, Russia, and Ukraine led to tight U.S. supplies. As a result, the price began to increase. Supplies remained tight though most of 1995, and by midyear, the price escalated to its highest level since magnesium was first produced in 1915.

The ITC established final a ntidumping determinations in April 1995 for magnesium imports from China, Russia, and

Ukraine (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1995a, b, c).

Because the antidu mping duty on Russian magnesium was

established at 0% for all the large producers (as long as they imported the magn esium through specified importing companies), magnesium again could be importe d from Russia,

which had been the United States’ larg est magnesium supplier. By 1996, the price began to drop as Russian magnesium returned to the U.S. market. At the same time, the countervailing duties on magnesium imports from Canada dropped enough so that Canada began exporting significant quantities of magnesium alloy into the United States. With

these sources of imported material, the United States experienced an oversupply of magnes ium, and prices dropped dramatically by yearend 1996. Also in 1996, the United

States imported more magnesium than it exported for the first time in more than 20 years.

The United States continued to rely on imports of magnesi um to meet its increasing demand, so U.S. prices

con tinued to weaken slightly through 1998, although they

were returning to more n o rmal levels from the 1995 price spike. World supply in 1997 and 1998 also increased with production from a new 27,500-ton-per-year pri m ary magnesium plant that had been commissioned at the end of 1996 in Israel (Platt’s Metals Week, 1997).

References Cited

Metals Week, 1990, Becancour plant will be up to par in June: Metals Week, v. 61, no. 10, March 5, p. 3.

Platt’s Metals Week, 1997, Dead Sea Magnesium to top capacity in 1998: Platt’s Metals Week, v. 68, no. 16, April 21, p. 12.

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992, Pure and alloy magnesium

from Canada—Recission of investigation and partial dismissal

of petition: Federal Register, v. 57, no. 134, July 13, p. 30939-

30955.81 ——1995a, Notice of final determination of sales at less than

fair value—P ure magnesium and alloy magnesium from the People’s Republic of China: Federal Register, v. 60, no. 61, March 30, p. 16437-16440. ———1995b, Notice of final determination of sales at less than fair value—Pure magnesium and alloy magnesium from the Russian Federation: Federal Register, v. 60, no. 61, March 30, p. 16440-16450. ———1995c, Notice of final determination of sales at less than fair value—Pure magnesium from Ukraine: Federal Register, v. 60, no. 61, March 30, p. 16432-16437.

Yearend Primary Magnesium Price (Dollars per pound 1 )

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1915 5.03 1936 0.26 1957 0.3625 1978 1.01

1916 4.13 1937 0.30 1958 0.3625 1979 1.09

1917 2.02 1938 0.30 1959 0.3625 1980 1.25

1918 1.81 1939 0.30 1960 0.3625 1981 1.34

1919 1.83 1940 0.27 1961 0.3625 1982 1.40

1920 1.60 1941 0.23 1962 0.3625 1983 1.38

1921 1.60 1942 0.23 1963 0.3625 1984 1.48

1922 1.60 1943 0.21 1964 0.3625 1985 1.53

1923 1.25 1944 0.21 1965 0.3625 1986 1.53

1924 1.07 1945 0.21 1966 0.3625 1987 1.53

1925 0.86 1946 0.21 1967 0.3625 1988 1.63

1926 0.80 1947 0.21 1968 0.3625 1989 1.63

1927 0.68 1948 0.21 1969 0.3625 1990 1.43

1928 0.55 1949 0.21 1970 0.3625 1991 1.43

1929 0.57 1950 0.25 1971 0.3625 1992 1.50

1930 0.48 1951 0.25 1972 0.3725 1993 1.46

1931 0.30 1952 0.27 1973 0.3825 1994 1.63

1932 0.29 1953 0.27 1974 0.75 1995 2.09

1933 0.28 1954 0.28 1975 0.82 1996 1.75

1934 0.26 1955 0.325 1976 0.92 1997 1.65

1935 0.26 1956 0.3525 1977 0.99 1998 1.57

1 To convert to dollars per metric ton, multiply by 2,204.62.

Note: 1915-34, Producers' average selling prices for 99%-pure magnesium bars. 1935-56, Producer price for 99.8%-pure magnesium ingot, in Engineering & Mining Journal. 1957-91, Producer price for 99.8%-pure magnesium ingot, in American Metal Market. 1992, U.S. transaction price for 99.8%-pure magnesium ingot, in Metals Week. 1993-98, U.S. spot Western price for 99.8%-pure magnesium ingot, in Platt's Metals Week.(This page intentionally left blank.)

### 83 

### Annual Average 48%-50% Manganese Ore Price

(Dollars per metric ton unit, c.i.f.)

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars
Current dollars 

# Mn Manganese

by Thomas S. Jones

Significant events affecting manganese ore prices since 1958

1960’s Production begins from the Groote Eylandt deposit in Australia and Moanda deposit in Gabon and potential of deposits

in South Africa’s Kalahari Field begins to be recognized

1965-78 Releases of stockpile excesses

1973-74 High levels of steel production
1974, 1978,

1981 Sharp increases in oil price Early 1980’s Economic recession, strong U.S. dollar

1980’s Adoption of steelmaking technology that significantly reduces amount of manganese required per ton of steel produced

1983-90 Significant imports of high-grade ore by China and the Soviet Union

1991 Dissolution of the Soviet Union

This discussion of manganese price is based on the price of

manganese units in metallurgical- g rade ore, for which a lengthy history exists. Manganese is used mostly in the production of iron a nd steel. Manganese metal, a minor

component of overall mangan ese demand, is a brittle

substance that has little use except as an alloying element. The most important metallic materials containing manganese are the manganese ferroalloys, of which high-carbon ferromanganese and silicomanganese have the greatest uses. The value of manganese in upgraded forms reflects the extraction

cost so that for materials used in the United States in 1997,

the ratio of price per manganese un it as contained in

### 84 upgraded form versus that in ore was 2.5:1 for high-carbon ferromanganese, 2.6:1 for silicomanganese, and 1 0:1 for

manganese metal ( Jones, 1998). Price trends for these

materials do not necessarily parallel those for ore because of

differences in such factors as world structure and number of suppliers and also because most ore usage is by way of ferroalloy smelters.

No c entral exchange has existed for setting the price of

manganese ore. Rather, prices have been established by negotiation between buyers and sellers, taking into account

such factors as content of elements other than manganese, physical character, quantity, and, of considerab l e significance,

ocean freight rates. Trade journals have published prices reflecting their sense of the market. These journals mainly list

the price for metallurgical-grade ore; price listings for ore used

in battery and so-called chemical applications are fragmentary

or nonexistent. The benchmark price for metallurgical-grade

ore is for relatively high-grade ore with a manganese content
in the range of 48% to 50%. Prices stated herein for metallurgical-grade ore generally meet that standard, although

this may not be strictly true throughout the entire time interval tabulated, particularly when the countries that are dominant sources of ore change.

The unit pricing system is used with manganese ore to
accommodate variations in manganese content. For some

ye ars now, the metric ton unit has been used; formerly, pricing had been based on the long ton unit. A unit is 1/100,

or 1%, of the weight unit, s o that 1 metric ton unit corresponds to 0.01 metric ton, or 10 kilograms, of manganese. To obtain the price of a metric ton of ore, the

metric ton unit price is multiplied by the percent manganese

content of the ore. For example, an ore priced at $2 per

metric ton unit that contains 50% manganese would have a value of $2 x 50 = $100 per ton. At the price level of $2 per 10 kilograms of manganese, the value of the manganese

co ntent of the ore also could be expressed as 20 cents per kilogram of manganese-in-ore. The larger year-to-year users of manganese ore have

tended to make their purchases by means of annual contracts,
which have been much more important than spot contracts. The U.S. market was once the largest for manganese ore so that prices tended to be set in the latter part of the calendar

year for th e next year’s shipments. With the decline in smelting of manganese ferroalloys in the United St ates, however, the Japanese have been the key factor in setting

annual prices for a number of years. The timing of price negotiations has tended to revolve around the Japanese fiscal

yea r, which begins on April 1. After the price to Japanese

consumers is set at about that time, settlements on a similar basis usually follow elsewhere (Carmichael, 1992).

Between 1959 and 1998, manganese ore price exhibited peaks in 1981 and 1990 and valleys in 1969, 1987, and 1994- 95. The average annual rate of advance in price throughout

these fo ur decades has been about 4.8%; since the late 1960’s, ore price has advanced at a 6.7% annual rate. These rates of advance might be compared with those for the

Consumer Price Index (CPI), which grew at an annual rate of

5.3% during this time period. The CPI grew at an annual rate of 8.6% during the 1970’s, but since the early 1980’s, it has been advancing at an annual rate of only 3.6%.

The downward trend in ore price between 1959 and 1969

was a continuation of a recession from a then-record high price in 1957. This was about the time that the Suez Canal

was closed briefly and that shipments began from the Amapá deposit in Brazil, an important new source of manganese.

Between 1951 and 195 9, the U.S. Government had stockpiled manganese ore from f oreign and domestic sources. Beginning in the mid-1960’s, however, the Government sold

sizable quantities of excess ore so that the stockpile effectively

became a medium-size “mine.” Stocks of metallurgical-grade

ore that had been more than 9 million to ns in 1969 were

reduced to less than 4 million tons by 1978 (DeHuff, 1971, 1980). Also in the 1960’s, development of several significant mostly new manganese deposits contributed to declining ore prices and alteration of the international supply pattern for

manganese ore. Two of these were the Groote Eylandt deposit in Australia’s Northern Territ ory and the Moanda deposit in Gabon, both of which were deve loped into large

surface mines (De Young, Sutphin, and Cannon, 1984). During the 1960’s and 1970’s, several major mines based on

the enormo u s manganese deposits of the Kalahari Field in

South Africa’s Northern Cape Province were opened, typified

in the north by the Black Rock Mine and in the south by the Mamatwan Mine (Coffman and Palencia, 1984).

The declining trend of ore price in the 1960’s was replaced by an even steeper upward trend in the 1970’s. The low of $0.49 per metric ton unit in 1969 was followed by prices of

about $1.40 per metric ton unit bet ween 1975 and 1979. Contributing factors were the comparatively high rates of

domestic and international steel production , especially in 1973-74, and the shock effects of oil price increases between

1974 and 1981.

After an ore price of nearly $1.70 was attained in 1980-81,

the direction of the trend again reversed in 1982 with onset of

a worldwide recession. In the early 1980’s, the more-efficient

use of manganese in steelmaking depressed demand for manganese. For example, by changing the way in which pig

iron was converted into steel, domestic steelmakers reduced

their unit consumption of manganese in steelmaking by about

one-fifth within about 2 years. This reduction was much larger than the steel-related growth in manganese demand that

otherwise would have been expected, ordinarily about 1% per

year. The U.S. ore price in the early 1980’s was also depressed by the relative strength of the dollar in relation to

other currencies.

After having decreased to $1.27 per metric ton unit as of 1987, ore price rose sharply to three consecutive all-time

record highs in terms of current dollars bet ween 1988 and 1990, concurrent with recovery of domestic and world steel production. Prior to the recovery in steel production, the

### 85 nature of the international manga nese ore market was changed when the then-U.S.S.R. and China began importing substantial quantities of ore in 1983 and 1984, respectively.

The imports were from such countries as Australia, Brazil, and Gabon, whose traditional principal export markets were Japan, Western Europe, and the United States. With so few competitors on the supply side, the market constituted an oligopoly . An apparent shortage of high-grade ore that developed because of unusually large ore purchases led to a price of $3.78 per metric ton unit in 1990, the record high to the present.

Prices generally have receded since the 1990 peak. One of

the main reasons was dissolution of the former U.S.S.R. in

1991 and the subsequent contraction of industrial production

in its successor republic s; this caused the developing ore market to disappear within a short period of time. Another

factor was the reactivation of mi ning or development at

known deposits, as in Western Australia (Chadwick, 1991);

th is led to modest additions to supply from what might be

termed “mini-mines,” wh ich nevertheless had a significant impact on price negotiations. During the 1990’s, a continu ing trend, often on an

international sc a le, has been the integration of mine production with ferroalloy production, which has the potential to affect the way ore is priced in the future.

References Cited

Carmichael, Malcolm, 1992, An introduction to manganese, in Bailey, John, ed., Iron and manganese ore databook: Worcester Park, England, Metal Bulletin Books Ltd., p. xli-xlix.

Ch adwick, John, 1991, Pilbara progress: Mining Magazine, v. 164, no. 5, p. 278-285. Coffman, Joseph, and Palencia, C.M., 1984, Manganese availability—Market economy countries: U.S. Bureau of Mines Information Circular 8978, 26 p. DeHuff, G.L., 1971, Manganese, in Minerals Yearbook 1969, v. I-II: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 673-684.
———1980, Manganese, in Minerals Yearbook 1978-79, v. I: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 577-591. DeYoung, J.H., Jr., S utphin, D.M., and Cannon, W.F., 1984, International Strategic Minerals Inventory summary report—Manganese: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 930-A, 22 p.
Jones, T.S., 1998, Man ganese—1997 Annual review: U.S. Geological Survey Mineral Industry Surveys, August, 14 p.

### 86 Annual Average 48%-50% Manganese Ore Price 1 (Dollars per metric ton unit, c.i.f. U.S. ports) 2

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1910 0.26 1933 0.41/0.19 1956 1.49/1.44 1979 1.38

1911 0.26 1934 0.45/0.23 1957 1.61/1.56 1980 1.67

1912 0.25 1935 0.47/0.25 1958 1.25/1.19 1981 1.69

1913 0.25 1936 0.37/0.26 1959 1.02/0.97 1982 1.56

1914 0.26 1937 0.55/0.44 1960 0.98/0.93 1983 1.36

1915 0.31 1938 0.47/0.36 1961 0.98/0.93 1984 1.40

1916 0.49 1939 0.43/0.32 1962 0.95/0.90 1985 1.41

1917 0.96 1940 0.62/0.51 1963 0.85/0.80 1986 1.32

1918 1.25 1941 0.76/0.65 1964 0.71/0.68 1987 1.27

1919 0.65 1942 0.83/0.72 1965 0.72 1988 1.75

1920 0.66 1943 0.83/0.72 1966 0.75 1989 2.76

1921 0.28 1944 0.78/0.67 1967 0.66 1990 3.78

1922 0.31 1945 0.84/0.73 1968 0.59 1991 3.72

1923 0.63/0.41 1946 0.77/0.66 1969 0.49 1992 3.25

1924 0.60/0.38 1947 0.69/0.58 1970 0.53 1993 2.60

1925 0.64/0.42 1948 0.70/0.64 1971 0.59 1994 2.40

1926 0.60/0.38 1949 0.77/0.71 1972 0.59 1995 2.40

1927 0.60/0.38 1950 0.96/0.91 1973 0.64 1996 2.55

1928 0.59/0.37 1951 1.18/1.12 1974 0.89 1997 2.44

1929 0.53/0.31 1952 1.33/1.27 1975 1.36 1998 2.40

1930 0.49/0.27 1953 1.25/1.19 1976 1.43

1931 0.46/0.24 1954 1.00/0.95 1977 1.46

1932 0.43/0.21 1955 1.08/1.02 1978 1.38

1 Values to the left of the slash include U.S. duty.

2 C.i.f denotes cost, insurance, and freight.

Note:
1910-37, calculated from U.S. Geological Survey and Bureau of Mines, 1940, Report upon certain deficient strategic minerals: U.S. Geological Survey and Bureau of Mines, p. 8. 1938-41, Barbour, P.E., 1941, Manganese prices, production and imports: Mining and Metallurgical Society of America Bulletin 263, v. 34, no. 5, December, p. 156-161. 1942-62, E&MJ Metal and Mineral Markets. 1963-77, American Metal Market. 1978-94, Manganese Commodity Specialist, U.S. Bureau of Mines (G.L. DeHuff and T.S. Jones). 1995-98, Manganese Commodity Specialist, U.S. Geological Survey (T.S. Jones).87 

### Annual Average U.S. Mercury Price

(Dollars per flask)

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars

Current dollars 

# Hg Mercury

by Robert G. Reese, Jr.

Significant event affecting mercury prices since 1958

1971 Mercury declared a hazardous air pollutant by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

In the 20 th century, the mercury price has been very volatile. During the first half of the century, the price

increased significantly three times. These increases coincided

with periods of increased demand, namely, World Wars I and

II and a per i od in the late 1920’s of high prices established

an d maintained by the Spanish-Italian mercury cartel—

Merc urio Europeo (Pennington, 1959, p. 47). Following World War II, through the run to its peak price in 1965, the

volatili ty can be explained in part by mercury’s erratic

demand and frequent overproduction. Since the early 1970’s, the average price has generally trended downward. Growing

awareness of health and environmental problems associated

with mercury have resulted in numerous r e gulations restricting

or eliminating mercury use in various applications, and governing its ultimate disposal. These regulations have the combined effect of lowering demand while at the same time increasing the supply of secondary mercury. As a result, the price has declined. Although it is believed that mercury producers have attempted to use sales re s trictions or floor prices to stabilize or raise the price at various t imes during

these three decades, these efforts have failed other than for very short periods.

Reference Cited

Pennin gton, J.W., 1959, Mercury—A materials survey: U.S. Bureau of Mines Information Circular 7941, 92 p.88 Annual Average U.S. Mercury Price

(Dollars per flask 1 )

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1899 43.63 1924 69.76 1949 79.46 1974 281.69

1900 51.00 1925 83.13 1950 81.26 1975 158.12

1901 47.00 1926 91.90 1951 210.13 1976 121.30

1902 48.03 1927 118.16 1952 199.10 1977 135.71

1903 41.32 1928 123.51 1953 193.03 1978 153.32

1904 41.00 1929 122.15 1954 264.39 1979 281.10

1905 38.50 1930 115.01 1955 290.35 1980 389.45

1906 40.90 1931 87.35 1956 259.92 1981 413.86

1907 41.50 1932 57.93 1957 246.98 1982 370.93

1908 44.84 1933 59.23 1958 229.06 1983 322.44

1909 46.30 1934 73.87 1959 227.48 1984 314.38

1910 47.06 1935 71.99 1960 210.76 1985 310.96

1911 46.54 1936 79.92 1961 197.61 1986 232.79

1912 42.46 1937 90.18 1962 191.21 1987 295.50

1913 39.54 1938 75.47 1963 189.45 1988 335.52

1914 48.31 1939 103.94 1964 314.79 1989 287.72

1915 87.01 1940 176.86 1965 570.75 1990 249.22

1916 125.49 1941 185.02 1966 441.72 1991 122.42

1917 106.30 1942 196.35 1967 489.36 1992 201.39

1918 123.47 1943 195.21 1968 535.56 1993 187.00

1919 92.15 1944 118.36 1969 505.04 1994 194.45

1920 81.12 1945 134.89 1970 407.77 1995 247.39

1921 45.46 1946 98.24 1971 292.41 1996 261.61

1922 58.95 1947 83.74 1972 218.28 1997 159.52

1923 66.50 1948 76.49 1973 286.23 1998 139.84

1 To convert to dollars per kilogram, multiply by .029008.

Note: 1899-1986, 76-pound flasks, in Engineering and Mining Journal. 1987-93, 76-pound flasks, 99.99%-pure mercury, in Metals Week (through June 14, 1993). 1993-98, 76-pound flasks, 99.99%-pure mercury, in Platt’s Metals Week.89 

### Annual Average Molybdenum Concentrate Price (Dollars per kilogram molybdenum content)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars

Current dollars 

# Mo Molybdenum

by John W. Blossom

Significant events affecting molybdenum prices since 1958

1971-74 Price controls imposed by the U.S. Government, including metal products

1990-91 Persian Gulf War and recession

1991 Dissolution of the Soviet Union

From the period of the Greek and Roman civilizations to
the late 18th century, such terms as “molybdos” or “molybdaena” were applied to minerals that were soft and

“leadl i ke” in character; these minerals probably included those

now known as galena, graphite, and molybdenite. This

confusion was resolved in 1778 when the Swedish chemist,

Karl Scheele, demonstrated that molybdenite , the principal molybdenum mineral, was a d iscrete mineral sulfide. Four

years later, P.J. Hjelm of Sweden reduced the acid-forming

oxide of the metal by heating it with charcoal, thereby producing an impure powder of the metal, which he named “molybdenum.” Various properties of the element and its compounds were determined during the 19th century, and in 1893, Ge rman chemists produced a 96%-pure metal by reducing calcium molybdate. About this time, impure metal

was reported to have been used experimentally as a substitute for tungsten in tool steels (Sutulov, 1965, p. 13-16). Molybdenum-bearing armorplate was produced in France

in 1894; this was the first recorded use of the metal as an alloying element in steel. Soon thereafter, Henri Mossiam, a90 French chemist, succeeded in producing a 99.9%- pure metal by reduction of molybdenum in an electric furnace. Mossiam

then conduc ted studies to establish the element's atomic weight and to determine its physical and chemical properties.

These studies stimulated interest in the metal and its

co mpounds and investigations of commercial applications. By

the late 1890’s, molybdenum was used in certain chemicals

and dyes, and in 1898, a self-hardening molybdenum tool steel was marketed (Schneider, 1963).

Since the early 1930’s, industrial research and marketing

programs have con siderably expanded the range of metallurgical materials in which moly bdenum is a preferred or

esse ntial alloy ingredient. The use of molybdenum as a refractory metal and in a variety of chemical applications has also grown significantly (Sutulov, 1965). The period from 1959 to 1970 resulted in steadily but only slightly increasi

ng prices. The 1970 price of molybdenum

was about 35% more than the 1959 price; the constant dollar price remained nearly unchanged. From 1971 to 1974, price

controls were imposed by the U.S. Government, and between

1970 and 1980 cons umers presumed a shortage woulddevelop, but one did not materialize. The price of molybdenum did increase nearly six times from its 1970 level, while

the spot price increased by eight times owing to relatively high demand compared with that of the 1960’s and early 1970’s.

Consumers made inquiries about purchasing, as well as actually purchasing material in excess of their needs. This

action motivated the producers to develop ad ditional unneeded mine capacity that became a major problem. The

new mines came on-stream about 3 years after the peak in

1980. Prices continued to decrease through 1986 but then slowly increased for 3 years. Between 1992 and 1994, just

after the Persian Gulf War, the dissolution of the former Soviet Union, and a recession, prices decreased yearly. The price in 1995 increased more than three times that of 1994, as consumers again presumed a shortage would develop; again,

one did not materialize. The average price in 1996 was about

40% lower than that of 1995. As the market stabilized, prices

remained about the same or increased slightly from 1996 to
1998.

References Cited

Schneider, V.B., 1963, Moly bdenum: Ottawa, Canada, Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, Mineral Report 6, p. 1-4. Sutulov, Alexander, 1965, [Molybdenum extractive metallurgy]: University of Concepcion, Chile, 239 p.

Annual Average Molybdenum Concentrate Price (Dollars per kilogram molybdenum content)

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1912 0.45 1934 1.57 1956 2.51 1978 10.40

1913 0.67 1935 1.57 1957 2.64 1979 13.60

1914 2.24 1936 1.48 1958 2.67 1980 20.10

1915 2.24 1937 1.52 1959 2.80 1981 17.80

1916 2.24 1938 1.57 1960 2.80 1982 14.80

1917 3.16 1939 1.52 1961 2.90 1983 7.60

1918 3.27 1940 1.55 1962 3.00 1984 7.10

1919 2.58 1941 1.52 1963 3.00 1985 6.90

1920 1.12 1942 1.59 1964 3.30 1986 5.60

1921 1.57 1943 1.59 1965 3.50 1987 5.70

1922 0.49 1944 1.59 1966 3.50 1988 6.00

1923 1.70 1945 1.59 1967 3.60 1989 7.10

1924 2.02 1946 1.52 1968 3.60 1990 5.70

1925 0.90 1947 1.52 1969 3.70 1991 4.60

1926 1.57 1948 1.55 1970 3.80 1992 4.90

1927 1.70 1949 1.86 1971 3.70 1993 3.80

1928 2.24 1950 1.90 1972 3.70 1994 2.50

1929 1.12 1951 2.13 1973 3.60 1995 8.30

1930 1.23 1952 2.15 1974 4.40 1996 5.00

1931 0.94 1953 2.17 1975 5.50 1997 5.00

1932 1.12 1954 2.24 1976 6.50 1998 5.80

1933 1.68 1955 2.31 1977 8.00

Sources: Prices for the period from 1912 to 1955 were published by the U.S. Bureau of Mines, but origin is undetermined. E&MJ Metal and Mineral Markets (1956-66). Metals Week (1967-92). Platt’s Metals Week (1993-98).91 

### Annual Average Nickel Price (Dollars per pound)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars

Current dollars



### Annual Average Price for 18-8 Stainless Steel Scrap

(Dollars per long ton gross weight)

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600

1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars

Current dollars 

# Ni

Nickel

by Peter H. Kuck92 Significant events affecting nickel prices since 1958

1966 Western Mining Corp. discovered nickel sulfide mineralization at Kambalda, Western Australia, triggering extensive

exploration of the greenstone belts between Norseman and Wiluna

1969 Canadian labor strike led to a severe spot shortage of nickel and a sixfold increase in the price of cathode

1972 Falconbridge Dominicana C. por A. commissioned its ferronickel smelter at Bonao, Dominican Republic

1977 P.T. International Nickel Indonesia (P.T. Inco) commissioned its Soroako mining and smelting complex on the

Indonesian island of Sulawesi; laterite mining began in Guatemala

1978-79 Labor strike in the Sudbury District of Ontario reduced Canadian mine output by more than 40%

1979 Nickel became the seventh metal traded on the London Metal Exchange (LME)

1981-82 A worldwide recession caused nickel demand and prices to fall sharply

1987-88 The Government of the Dominican Republic levied a substantial export duty on ferronickel; Falconbridge

Dominicana countered by limiting ferronickel shipments and declaring force majeure

1987-89 Supply shortages; Stainless steel production in the Western World passed the 10-million-metric-ton-per-year mark

1991 Dissolution of the Soviet Union followed by a sharp rise in exports of Russian nickel

1993 Voisey’s Bay nickel-copper deposit discovered in northeastern Labrador by diamond prospectors

1999 The Murrin Murrin laterite mine and two other pressure acid-leaching operations came onstream in Western

Australia

During th e 17 t h century, German miners had difficulty processing certain copper sulfide ores be cause of an

associa t ed mineral that they called kupfernickel, or “Old

Nick’s copper.” The troublesome mineral turned out to be nickel arsenide and is known today as “niccolite” or

“nickeline.” In 1751, Axel Fredrik Cronstedt isolated a previously unknown chemical element from niccolite. This

element was subsequently named “nickel.” Nickel was mined

on only a limited scale until the large lateritic nickel deposits

in New Cale donia came into production about 1875 (Boldt

and Queneau, 1967, p. 61-65). The first nickel operations processed sulfide ores—primarily in Canada, Central Europe,

Chin a, Pennsylvania, and Scandinavia. Nickel had little economic or industrial significance until 1820 when Michael Faraday succeeded in making synthetic meteoric iron by adding nickel to pure iron. Faraday’s alloy was the forerunner of nickel steel, a family of ferrous alloys that continues

to play an important role in industrial development. One of

the first uses of nickel steel was for ordnance. Nickel-steel

armor plate was first produced commerci ally in France in

1885 (Hall, 1954). Competitiveness trials of nickel-steel armor took place in the United States in 1890-91, and within

a few years, Bethlehem Iron Co. (forerunner of Bethlehem

Steel Corp.) was producing larg e nickel-steel guns for the

U.S. military (Wharton, 1897). The nickel steels developed

before World War I contained only 1.5% to 4.5% nickel, with

a carbon content of 0.2% to 0.5% (Hess, 1917). Other important early use s were bridge structures, railroad rails, axles, ship propeller shafts, and automo bile engine parts (Cammen, 1928). The first commercial chromium-nickel

steel—and one of the first grades of stainless steel—was

made at St. Chamond, France, in 1891. Like nickel-steel

armor, chromium- n ickel-steel armor proved to be much superior to the carbon-steel plate then in use, triggering extensive production of the new type of steel (Hall, 1954, p. 1-62).

In the late 1990’s, stainless steel production accounts for

m ore than 60% of world nickel consumption and is the primary factor in nickel pricing. Stainless steel is defined as

an iron alloy that contains at least 11% chromium. Nickelbearing stainless steels are termed “austenitic”, a reference to
their characteristic solid solution microstructure, and typically

contain between 6% and 22% nickel—with 18% chromium

and 8% nickel being the most common composition. In the Western World, total stainless steel production has grown at

about 6.1% per year since 1950 (Inco Limited, 1998, p. 3-8).

Since 1985, the austenitic share of Western stainless steel production has accounted for about 75% of t otal stainless output, the rest being ferritic or martensitic. In recent years,

the austenitic percentage for the United States has ranged

from 63% to 67% because its steel plants produce significant

amounts of ferritic stainless for the North Am erican automobile industry. Since 1970, demand for stainless steel in the

United States has grown at a m uch faster rate than that of

c arbon steel but still constitutes only 2% of total U.S. raw

steel production. For the next 20 years, stainless steel production is expected to continue to play a prominent role in determining nickel price levels. Like petroleum, nickel is a critical commodity in wartime. Nickel, as well as cobalt, is needed to make superalloys for engines that propel jet aircraft a nd guided missiles. Pure nickel is used in high-performance batteries, such as those that start jet engines or power satellites. Austenitic stainless

steel and nickel

-base superalloys are commonly used if

chemical corrosion is a seri ous problem, such as on

submarines and surface naval vessels or at food-processing or93 petroleum-storage facilities. Merchant nickel prices traditionally spike in wartime when demand far exceeds

su pply and frequently rise in times of political unrest and instability. Producer prices, in contrast, have been frozen in several crises by war-production boards or emergency pricecontrol regulations.

The Korean Conflict is a good illustration of price spiking

and distribution controls. During the transition from a civilian

to a defense economy, demand for nickel exceeded available supply even though North American nickel mines and plants were operating at full capacity. At the outset of the conflict,

the U.S. Government took control of th e distribution of nickel, and from 1951 to 1957, all nickel in the United States

was under Government allo cation. At the same time, the

Government also acquired nickel for the national strategic stockpile. The combination of these actions resulted in a severe shortage of nickel for nondefense uses (Davis, 1956). Shortages continued throughout the conflict despite th e addition of significant new production capacity in Canada and

the United States and the rehabilitation of a number of older

mines and plants. Moreover, the U.S. Government continued to purchase nickel for the strategic stockpile after the conflict

ended. As a result, supply did not exceed civilian demand until the latter part of 1957, 4 years after the armistice. The produ c er price of nickel—tracking consumption—began a gradual rise in 1950 and did not peak until 1957. A period of oversupply followed, during which quoted produc er and merchant prices for nickel approximately paralleled inflation. This situation produced a constant-dollar price for the metal that was fairly stable for more than 10 years.

In 1969, the Cana dian nickel, copper, and iron ore

indu stries were shut down by a prolonged series of labor

strikes. Canada was the dominant nickel-producing country

in the world at th e time. Canada’s two largest producers,

Inco Limited and Falconbridge Limited, accounted for 48% of

world production the previous year. Because of the strikes, Canadian nickel production was almost 20% less than that of

1968 (Morrell, 1971). The strikes took place at a point in

time when global stocks were low a nd world demand was restricted by available supply.

The 1969 strikes affected nickel prices i n two ways.
Before the strikes, the major producers, led by the Canadians,

controlled the nickel price. The short-term effect was a brief price increase. The long-term ef fect was to diminish the importance of the pro ducer price. Canadian and nonCanadian producers accelerated efforts to expand existin g operations and to bring greenfield projec t s onstream before prices weakened. Between 1969 and 1974, new mines and

proce ssing plants were commissioned in Australia, Canada,

the Dominican Republic, and New Caledonia. The increased capacity resulted in a reduction of the Canadians’ share of the

world market and, thus, their influence on prices—a turning point in the history of nickel marketing.

In the mid-1970’s, Western Mining Corp. Ltd. (now WMC

Ltd. of Southbank, Victoria) sharply ex panded its mining operations in the Kalgoorlie region of Western Australia.

Australia is now the third largest nickel producer in the world

because of additional discoveries in Western Australia, the subsequent construction of a major natural gas pipeline from

the N o rth West Shelf to Kalgoorlie, and the advent of new extraction technologies (Government of Australia, 1999).

Nickel prices, reflecting consumption, rose sli g htly from

1970 until 1975, when the cumulative effect of ope n ing

several new production facilities began to be felt. In 1975,

U.S. demand for nickel weakened, partially because of the

termination of U.S.-led military operations in V ietnam. In 1977, P.T. Inco comm issioned its Soroako mining and smelting complex on the Indonesian island of Su l awesi, bringing additional metal into the marketplace. An oversupply situation and declining consumption caused prices to remain

flat until the Inco strike of 1978-79. The strike at Inco's operations in the Sudbury District lasted from September 16, 1978, to June 3, 1979 (Inco Limited, 1980, p. 4-9). Between February 1979 and the end of the year, Inco raised its Port Colborne price for cathode six times. The effect of the Inco strike on prices was compounded by the fact that major producers had been operating at 55% to 60% of capacity to reduce inventories and to improve the price situation.

The Inco strike helped accelerate major changes in nickel pricing. In spring 1979, nickel became the seventh metal

traded on the LME—marking a major turning point in pricing

of the metal. Today, nickel prices are set by the LME rather

than by the produ cers. Since 1979, nickel has become a commodity whose pric e is driven by world supply and demand, irrespective of production costs. Many consumers,

as well as producers, were opposed to LME trading at the

time. Most, however, would now agree that the LME is a practical and effective forum for establishing an international reference price for nickel, improving price transparency, and rapidly disseminating price data. It is difficult to say how

much nickel, probably a small proportion, actually sells at the

LME price. The LME price has more importance than appears at first glance because it is used as a reference price

in long-term contracts. For example, a large nickel producer might ask for a premium to the LME price, and a smaller one might sell at a discount. Because of the LME, producer prices became irrelevant in the early 1980’s.

The Second Oil Cr i sis (1979-82), triggered by the

revolution in Iran, had a major dampening effect on world consumption of steel

and most metals. The resulting

recession that began in summer 1981 caused a marked decline

in nickel consumption. Nickel demand in the Western World

declined about 8% in 1981; this was the first time since the

late 1940's that demand had declined for two consecutive

years. The recession ended in November 1982, but prices

continued to weaken until 1985 because of s lackening

d emand. In 1987, the market suddenly changed direction, catching producers off guard. The annual average price surged from its lowest level ever in 1986 to its highest in 1988 (in terms of 1992 constant dollars for the period 1910-97).94

The monthly average LME cash price rose gradually from $1

. 60 per pound at the beginning of 1987 to $2.69 in

November. In December 1987, it suddenly shot up to $3.48. The rapid increase continued in 1988, with the monthly price reaching $8.17 in April. These price levels would have been unimaginable t o the nickel market 4 years earlier. Three factors were primarily responsible for the increase. The first

was a substant ial and unforseen increase in demand for

stainless steel, the largest end use for nickel. More than 50% of stainless steel production in the United States and Europe

is sold through service centers (companies that buy directly

from a stainless mill and sell to customers). Service centers
do not publish detailed

sales statistics in terms of end use,making it difficult for stainless producers to monitor consumption of their product. The second factor was that nickel producers reduced world production capacity because of low

metal prices during the early and mid-1980’s. At least five

nickel producers closed operations during this period. A third factor was the decreased availability of stainless steel scrap. Although Western demand for nickel grew continuously between 1985 and 1991, the LME price peaked in 1988 and

declined each year afterward until 1994. The reasons for this paradoxical trend were threefold—the fo r mer Soviet Union (FSU ) began gradually increasing nickel shipments to the
West, scrap availability increased w orldwide, and world production of primary nickel increased.

The breakup of the Soviet Union in December 1991 produced massive changes in the Russian economy, one of

which was the partial privatization of th e largest nickel producer in the country, RAO Norilsk Nickel. At the same time, the downsizing of the FSU military-industrial complex

caused nickel cons umption within Russia to plummet. In 1997, Russia consumed only 20,000 metric tons of primary nickel, compared with 180,000 tons in 1989 (International

Nickel Study Group, 1998). Russian consumption weakened even more in 1998, slipping to less than 18,000 tons. These changes led to a surge of primary nickel from Russia, putting

downward pressure on world prices for primary nickel and nickel-bearing scrap. Russian exports of stainless steel scrap

an d high-nickel scrap to the European Union (EU) also sharply increased, further depressing world nickel prices. Russia continues to maintain its position as the largest nickel producer in the world despite its difficult economic situation.

More than 90% of Russia’s output currently (1998) comes from mines operated in the Arctic by Norilsk Nickel. Because of internal demands within Russia for hard currency and the depressed state of the Russian stainless steel industry, Norilsk

Nick el is expected to continue exporting the bulk of its production to the West at least until 2005. The Russian situation, the current recession in Japan, and

economic problems in other parts of East Asia have caused

the monthly LME cash price to decline from $3.20 per pound

in June 1997 to $1.76 in December 1998. Since 1997,

Western nickel producers have had to struggle to cut costs in

the face of weakening prices for the metal. Prices improved slightly in the first half of 1999, climbing back to the $2.25 to $2.50 level. The commissioning of three nickel mining and metallurgical complexes in Western Australia at the beginning

of 1999 is, however, expected to put renewed downward

pressure on prices . All three operations use variations of a high-pressure acid leach process to extract nickel and cobalt

from limonitic laterite ores. The nickel is then separated from

the cobalt by solvent extraction . Several analysts believed

that the three Australian complexes will have low operational

costs and will be extremely competitive because of their cobalt byproduct credits.

Inco remains committed to the development of the huge

Vo isey’s Bay nickel-copper-cobalt deposit in northeastern

Labrador (Inco Limited, 1999, p. 20-21). In December 1997,

Inco submitted a comprehensive e nvironmental impact

st a tement on the proposed mine and mill to Canadian regulatory authorities. Since then, the Voisey’s Bay project has undergone extensive environmental and socio-economic scrutiny. In March 1999, a special panel overseeing the

environmental review recommended that the project proceed, subject to a number of stipulations. Complex and lengthy negotiations are currently (1999) underway with the

Provincial Government and other key stake holders. The development of the deposit, which Inco acquired in 1995-96,

is expected to have a major impact on the world nickel market

sometime after 2003.

Pricing Mechanisms for Nickel Metal

On April 23, 1979, nickel contracts were introduced for the

first time on the LME. Leading nickel producers at first stiffly opposed the LME pricing mechanism. Nickel business

on the LME, however, steadi ly grew in spite of the producers’ opposition, convincing the producers to reverse

their position. Producer participation has increased considerably since 1985 because of the LME’s hedging and options capabilities. Today, LME prices are the principal pricing me chanism used worldwide by producers and

consumers of nickel. LME prices and archival statistics are available 24 hours a day at the LME website, thus minimizing arbitrage. LME prices are also quoted by day in a variety of weekly trade publications, including Metal Bulletin, Platt’s Metals Week, and Ryan’s Notes. In 1999, the LME pricing

system had the support of nine of the larger nickel producers

in the world. Five of the nine are Associate Trade Members

of the Exch ange—Inco; Falconbridge (through its principal shareholder, Noranda Inc.); Outokumpu Oyj of Espoo, Finland; Rio Tinto Plc. of London; and WMC. All five sell

metal that meets L ME specifications. Metal produced by

Norilsk Nickel and

the ERAMET Group—two other major producers—has also been approved for delivery on LME warrants, together with metal from Sumitomo Metal Mining

C o. Ltd. and several smaller producers. QNI Limited of Brisbane, Australia—the ninth company—recently became a major player in the nickel market. QNI has ties to the LME95 through its parent, Billiton Plc., but produces material unlisted on the LME: sintered-nickel rondelles, nickel oxide powder, nickel oxide granules, and ferronickel.

The principal purpose of the LME since its opening in 1877

has been to serve as a futures market, providing protection to producers, traders, and consumers alike against unpredictable price fluctuations (Rudolf Wolff & Co. Ltd., 1995). The

LME has a membership of more than 100 firms. Of these,

15 take part in Ring dealing, which consists of open outcry trading sessions that take place twice a day. Unlike other

futures markets, the LME also serves as a center for physical

trad ing and has an international network of approved

warehouses. In the case of nickel, the bulk of the warehousing is done in the Netherlands at Rotterdam. The LME

is regulated by the British Treasury un der the Financial

Services Act of 1985. Hedging, a form of insurance avai lable to producers and

consumers alike, is a key component of the futures market

and reduces a producer’s exposure to price changes while the

raw nickel is moving through different processing stages at the producer’s facilities. To guard against sudden price movements, the producer will hedge a planned physical transaction by entering into an offsetting forward contract on the LME.

The forward contract is often designed to mature at about the

same time as the physical sales date. Most hedged contracts are bought or sold back before they mature. Only about 5% of LME contracts result in an actual delivery. Speculators pla y an important role in futures trading

because they bring liquidity to the market and assume the risk

that the hedger is trying to avoid. Because metals speculation

is a high-r

isk venture, only professional investors or

institutions with sufficient capital to with stand the risk are normally allowed to participate. Option contracts give hedgers

and investors more flexibility than a straight futures hedge.

The option allows the hedger to lock in a contract at a fixed price but, at the same time, gives the hedger the flexibility to abandon the option if a favorable price movement occurs. Five different price series for nickel are available from the

LME:

• Cash

• Settlement

• 3-month futures

• 15-month futures

• 27-month futures.

Prices are quoted at midday and at the close of the afternoon

session. Metal Bulletin and Platt’s Metals Week also publish daily LME mean or index prices. The data shown in the accompanying table for the years since 19 79 represent the annual average cash price.

North American consumers have several other price series

that they can use in contract negotiations. For example,

Platt’s Metals Week and Ryan’s Notes compile and publish

their own copyright ed prices. Three of the Metals Week prices most commonly quoted are New York Dealer Cathode,

New York Dealer Melti

ng Grade, and New York Dealer Plating Grade. The New York Dealer Cathode price closely tracks the LME cash price but is normally slightly higher

because it reportedly incorporates insurance and freight costs
incurred when cathode is transferred from LME warehouses

in Europe to the East Coast. Prices for plating grades typically carry a premium of 15 to 25 cents (U.S.) per pound,

and melting grade premiums are on the order of 5 to 15 cents per pound (Platt’s Metals Week, 1972-98).

Pricing Mechanisms for Stainless Steel Scrap

Nickel is less abundant than either chromium or iron in the

Earth’s crust because of nickel’s higher atomic number and

differences in the nuclear stability of the respective isotopes

of the three elements. As a result, on an elemental basis,

ferronickel is abou t 5 to 8 times more expensive than

ferrochromium and 30 to 50 times more expensive than pig iron, depending upon the market situation at the time. As a

r ule of thumb, austenitic (Ni+Cr) stainless steel scrap is roughly three times more valuable t han ferritic (Cr only)

stainless steel scrap. Because the highest value material in

austenitic stainless steel is nickel, stainless steel scrap prices

clo sely track those of nickel cathode except when ferrochromium is in short supply.

Almost all stainless steel produced in the United States is

made in electric-arc furnaces. The majority of the stainless

steel production facilities are in Pennsylvania. Nickel-base

supera lloys and other nickel-chromium alloys also are commonly made in electric-arc furnaces. The characteristics

of the electric furnace permit the operator to use a l arge percentage of scrap, economizing on consumption of virgin

chromium and nickel.

The stainless steel scrap prices shown in the accompanying

table were derived from daily data published by American

Metal Market. The data represent consumer buying prices in

the Pittsburgh, PA, area for austenitic stainless steel scrap and are quoted in dollars per long ton gross weight. The scrap is

in the form of bundles, solids, and clippings typically containing 18% chromium and 8% nickel. Turnings of 18-8 alloy are more difficult to handle than bundles and fetch only

about 85% of the bundle price. American Metal Market also publishes estimated prices that a dealer, broker, or processor

would pay for 18-8 scrap delivered to yards in 10 different

areas of the United States plus the Montreal area of Canada. Although many types of nickel scrap are recy cled in the

United States, most is in the form of stainless steel. Stainless

steel scrap currently (1999) accounts for about 85% of

re claimed nickel in the country. This includes scrap

consumed in foundries i n addition to that used in raw

steelmakin g. Scrap accounts for as much as 80% of total

feed materials at some European stainless steel production facilities but typically 60% to 70% in the United States—the

remainder being ferroalloys or virgin metals. The bulk of the

scrap is conventional austenitic or ferritic stainless steel. The

scrap is often blended and may include lesser amounts of low96 alloy steel , superalloys and other high-nickel-chromium alloys,

and/or specially-processed fines of high-carbon fe rrochromium. A high scrap ratio (i.e., a high percentage of scrap

in the total charge) reduces melting time and electricity consumption but makes final chemical adjustments to the melt

more difficult. A few foreign mills have recently dropped

their scrap ratio down to 30% or 40% because of problems in purchasing quality scrap at a reasonable price. Copper-nickel and superalloy scrap make up a large portion

of the remaining 15% of nickel reclaimed in the United States.

Aircraft engine manufacturers return turnings, chippings, and

similar forms of prompt superalloy scrap to superalloy producers for remelting. Segregation of these materials by the engine manufacturers is absolutely critical. Because of quality

control concerns, part of the obsolete superal l oy scrap generated at aircraft engine repair facilities is downgraded and

used to make stainless steel.

References Cited

Boldt, J.R., Jr., and Queneau, Paul, 1967, The winning of nickel: Princeton, NJ, D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., 487 p.
Cammen, Leon, 19 28, Alloy steels, Chap. 6 of Principles of metallurgy of ferrous metals: American Society o f Mechanical Engineers, p. 142-162. Davis, H.W., 1956, Nickel, in Minerals Yearbook 1953, v. I: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 837-853. [Government of Australia], 1999, Australian national statement:

International Nickel Study Group, 9 t h General Session, [The Hague, the Netherlands], April 21, 1999, presentation, 2 p. Hall, A.M., 1954, Nickel in iron and steel: New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 595 p.

Hess , F.L., 1917, Nickel, i n Mineral resources of the United States 1915: U.S. Geological Survey, pt. 1, p. 743-766.

Inco Limited, 1980, Annual report—1979: Toronto, Ontario, Inco Limited, 41 p. ———1998, World stainless steel statistics: Toronto, Ontario, Inco Limited, October, 128 p.
———1999, Annual report—1998: Toronto, Ontario, Inco Limited, October, 81 p. International Nickel Study Group, 1998, World nickel statistics:

The Hague, the Netherlands, International Nickel Study Group, v. 8, no. 11, November, p. 64-66. Morrell, L.G., 1971, The mineral industry of Canada, in Minerals Yearbook 1969, v. IV: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 163-181.

Platt’s Metals Week, 1972-98, Metals Week price handbook: New York, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Rudolf Wolff & Co. Ltd., 1995, Nickel, chap. 15 o f Wolff’s guide to the London Metal Exchange (5 th ed.): Surrey, United Kingdom, Metal Bulletin Books Ltd., p. 127-133. Wharton, Joseph, 1897, Nickel and cobalt, in Eighteenth Annual Report of the United States Geological Survey, 1896-97: U.S. Geological Survey, pt. 5, p. 329-342.

Annual Average Price for 18-8 Stainless Steel Scrap

(Dollars per long ton gross weight 1 )

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1987 560 1990 927 1993 634 1996 834

1988 1,150 1991 855 1994 719 1997 808

1989 1,266 1992 728 1995 1,055 1998 600

1 To convert to dollars per metric ton, multiply by 0.984207.

Note:
1987-98, Derived from the average of the Friday consumer buying price range for 18% Cr-8% Ni scrap in bundles, solids, and clips, Pittsburgh, PA, in

American Metal Market.97 Annual Average Nickel Price (Dollars per pound 1 )

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1840 1.70 1880 0.95 1920 0.42 1960 0.74

1841 1.70 1881 0.91 1921 0.42 1961 0.78

1842 2.09 1882 0.99 1922 0.38 1962 0.80

1843 2.40 1883 1.11 1923 0.36 1963 0.79

1844 2.75 1884 0.70 1924 0.30 1964 0.79

1845 3.05 1885 0.65 1925 0.33 1965 0.79

1846 3.05 1886 0.48 1926 0.36 1966 0.79

1847 2.89 1887 0.62 1927 0.35 1967 0.88

1848 2.19 1888 0.58 1928 0.37 1968 0.95

1849 1.93 1889 0.65 1929 0.35 1969 1.05

1850 1.93 1890 0.65 1930 0.35 1970 1.29

1851 1.93 1891 0.55 1931 0.35 1971 1.33

1852 1.93 1892 0.75 1932 0.35 1972 1.40

1853 1.70 1893 0.52 1933 0.35 1973 1.53

1854 1.70 1894 0.57 1934 0.35 1974 1.74

1855 1.57 1895 0.30 1935 0.35 1975 2.07

1856 1.57 1896 0.33 1936 0.35 1976 2.25

1857 1.45 1897 0.33 1937 0.35 1977 2.27

1858 1.20 1898 0.33 1938 0.35 1978 2.04

1859 1.20 1899 0.32 1939 0.35 1979 2.66

1860 1.20 1900 0.50 1940 0.35 1980 2.96

1861 1.20 1901 0.56 1941 0.35 1981 2.71

1862 1.08 1902 0.45 1942 0.32 1982 2.18

1863 1.65 1903 0.40 1943 0.32 1983 2.12

1864 2.29 1904 0.40 1944 0.32 1984 2.16

1865 1.68 1905 0.40 1945 0.32 1985 2.26

1866 1.55 1906 0.40 1946 0.35 1986 1.76

1867 1.52 1907 0.45 1947 0.35 1987 2.19

1868 1.14 1908 0.45 1948 0.36 1988 6.25

1869 1.39 1909 0.40 1949 0.40 1989 6.04

1870 1.28 1910 0.40 1950 0.45 1990 4.02

1871 1.32 1911 0.40 1951 0.54 1991 3.70

1872 2.25 1912 0.40 1952 0.57 1992 3.18

1873 3.84 1913 0.42 1953 0.60 1993 2.40

1874 3.10 1914 0.41 1954 0.61 1994 2.88

1875 2.96 1915 0.41 1955 0.66 1995 3.73

1876 2.52 1916 0.42 1956 0.65 1996 3.40

1877 1.60 1917 0.42 1957 0.74 1997 3.14

1878 0.95 1918 0.41 1958 0.74 1998 2.10

1879 0.89 1919 0.40 1959 0.74

1 To convert to dollars per metric ton, multiply by 2,204.62.

Note: 1840-1912, Price of refined metal, as supplied by Inco Ltd. 1913-21, Price of refined metal, in Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970, U.S. Department of Commerce,

Bureau of the Census. 1922-45, Price quoted by International Nickel Co. of Canada, Ltd., for electrolytic nickel cathode at New York, in 2-short-ton minimum lots, in the nickel chapter of the U.S. Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook.
1946-47, Contract price to U.S. buyers of electrolytic nickel cathode in carlots, f.o.b. Port Colborne, Ontario, including duty of 2.50 cents per pound, in

the nickel chapter of the U.S. Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook.
1948-61, Contract price to U.S. buyers of electrolytic nickel cathode in carlots, f.o.b. Port Colborne, Ontario, including duty of 1.25 cents per pound, in

the nickel chapter of the U.S. Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook. [Duty was halved on January 1, 1948.]
1962-79, Contract price to U.S. buyers of electrolytic nickel in carlots, f.o.b. Port Colborne, Ontario, in American Metal Market. Weighted average for the year. U.S. import duty of 1.25 cents per pound was suspended on September 27, 1965. 1980-93, London Metal Exchange cash price for primary nickel of minimum 99.80% purity, delivered in the form of either cut cathodes or pellets or briquets, lots of 6 metric tons, in Metals Week [through June 14, 1993]. 1993-98, London Metal Exchange cash price for primary nickel of minimum 99.80% purity, delivered in the form of either cut cathodes or pellets or briquets, lots of 6 metric tons, in Platt’s Metals Week.(This page intentionally left blank.)99 

### Annual Average Iridium Price (Dollars per troy ounce)

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars

Current dollars



### Annual Average Osmium Price (Dollars per troy ounce)

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars

Current dollars 

# Ir, Os, Pd, Pt, Rh, Ru Platinum-Group Metals

by Henry E. Hilliard100 

### Annual Average Palladium Price (Dollars per troy ounce)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars

Current dollars



### Annual Average Platinum Price (Dollars per troy ounce)

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars

Current dollars101 

### Annual Average Rhodium Price (Dollars per troy ounce)

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars

Current dollars



### Annual Average Ruthenium Price (Dollars per troy ounce)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars

Current dollars102 Significant events affecting platinum-group metals (PGM) prices since 1958

1964-68 Tight supply for platinum owing to start-up demands for new petroleum refineries

1971 PGM price declines owing to expansion of production in South Africa and economic recessions in the United States and

other countries

1973 Anticipated demand for platinum and palladium in automobile catalytic converters in the United States puts pressure on

prices, catalytic converters first used in 1974

1980 Strong investor speculation pushes up prices for all precious metals

1983 Rustenburg Platinum Holdings Ltd. in South Africa suspends its producer price quotations for PGM, increased trading

of futures contracts on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX)

1984 Price increase for rhodium because of higher demand for rhodium in automobile three-way catalytic converters

1986 Platinum price increase after a work stoppage at Impala Platinum Holdings Ltd. in South Africa

Naturally occurring platinum and platinum-rich alloys have

been known for a long time. The Spaniards named the metal

“ platina,” or little silver, when they first encountered it in Colombia. They regarded platinum as an unwanted impurity

in the silver they were mining. Today, 98% of the world’s primary platinum-group metals (PGM) production comes

from four countries—South Africa (66%), Russia (23%), the

United States (5%), and Canada (4%). The ratio of palladium

to platinum in individual PGM ores varies from co untry to
country. South Africa produces about twice as much platinum as palladium, whereas Russia produces about three

times as much palladium as platinum (Conradie, 1997, p. 34- 40). In Canada, PGM are byproducts of nickel ore processing. The expanding U.S. production of PGM is

centered in the Stillwater Complex in Montana. The Stillwater and East Boulder Mines are primary PGM producers with small amounts of byproduct nickel, cobalt, and gold.

The catalytic properties of the six PGM—iridium, osmium, palladium, platinum, rhodium, and ruthenium—are outstanding. Platinum’s wear and tarnish resistance

characteristics are well suited for making fine jewelry. Other

distinctive properties include resista n ce to chemical attack,

exc ellent high-temperature characteristics, and stable electrical properties. All these properties have been exploited for

industrial applications. Platinum, platinum alloys, and iridium

are used as crucible materials for the growth of single crystals, especially oxides. The chemical industry uses a significant

amount of e ither platinum or a platinum-rhodium alloy catalyst in the form of gauze to catalyze the partial oxidation

of ammonia to yield nitric oxide, which is the raw material for fertilizers, explosives, and nitric acid. In recent years, a

number of PGM have become impor tant as catalysts in synthetic organic che mistry. Ruthenium dioxide is used as coatings on dimensionally stable titanium anodes used in the production of chlorine and caustic soda. Platinum supported catalysts are used in the refining of crude oil, reforming, and

other processes used in the production of high-octane gasoline

and aromatic compounds for the petrochem i cal industry.

Since 1 979, the automotive industry has emerged as the principal consumer of

PGM. Palladium, platinum, and rhodium have been used as oxidation catalysts in catalytic

converters to treat automobi le exhaust emissions. A wide range of PGM alloy compositions is used in low-voltage and low-energy contacts, thick- and thin-film circuits, thermocouples and furnace components, and electrodes (Hilliard and Dunning, 1983, p. 129-142).

The most important prices for PGM have been the South

African producer prices and the free-market prices fixed daily

on the commodity exchanges. In terms of total value of PGM traded, the most important exchange is NYMEX. Producer prices give a certain amount of stability to the platinum and palladium markets. From about 1980 onward, however, the free-market price of platinum fell to well below the producer price, putting pressure on the p roducer price and inducing consumers to buy increasing quantities on the free market to

meet their requirements. Also, the increased growth of

investments in platinum added more pressure on producers to adopt a more realistic price level. Consequently, South

African producers largely abando ned producer prices and adopted a pricing po licy that more closely reflected market

conditions. NYMEX and the Tokyo Commodi ty Exchange

for Industry trade PGM on the open marke t

. Russia, the world’s largest palladium producer, sells palladium and other PGM through the Government agency Almazjuvelirexport (Roskill Information Services Ltd, 1991, p. 195-197). Beginning in 1957 and continuing through 1958, a drop in

demand for platinum by domestic petroleum refiners and persistent selling pressure by the U.S.S.R. at discount prices

caused the platinum price to tumble to the lowest level in a

decade. Soviet sales brought a corresponding decline in the price of palladium to the lowest level since 1933. In 1959, prices for platinum and palladi um advanced, reversing the

trend of 1957 through 1958. The more orderly selling policy by the U.S.S.R. was a significant factor in the PGM market recovery. Also, U.S. Government purchases contributed to the higher price of palladium.

In spring 1963, the U.S.S .R. disrupted the orderly

m arketing of PGM by selling large amounts of metal at
below-market prices but curtailed its offerings later in the

year. U.S. consumption of PGM reached the highest amount103 in history, more than 1 million ounces. The largest use for platinum was in the chemical industry, and the largest use for palladium was in the electrical industry (Ware, 1963, p. 901).

From 1964 to 1968, supplies of platinum were tight, putting upward pressure on prices. In 1965, U.S. suppliers allocated platinum to established customers at $100 per ounce. U.S. purch ases of platinum were up sharply owing to the

construction of new petroleum refineries. Prices for PGM during 1967 reflected the short supplies that persisted

t hroughout the year. Although the producer price for platinum showed a small increase, dealer prices were up sharply. At the start of 1967, the producer price for platinum

was $100 per ounce. On January 24, the price was increased

to $109 to $112 per ounce and was unchanged until

December when sales were made at $125. Dealer prices, which started the year at $157 to $160 per ounce, began to
increase in May and were $225 to $230 by yearend. The producer price of palladium, which was $35 to $37 per ounce in October 1966, increased to $37 to $39 in January 1967 and

remained unchanged for the remainder of the year. The price

of rhodiu m was $197 to $299 per ounce in January 1969,

increased in March and again in December, and closed out the

year at $245 to $250. During the following year, dealer prices were two to three times as much as producer prices. In 1971, prices of PGM declined owing to recession in the

United States and other countries and the expansion of platinum capacity in South Africa. In each of the previous 8 years, South Africa increased its output. On the strength of

an upturn in consumption and growing anticipation that PGM might be needed in a few years for automotive exh aust
emissions control, prices and production posted sig nificant

increases in 1972. By the second quarter of 1972, U.S.

dealer prices for platinum and palladium had exceeded producer prices. By midyear, the dealer price for iridium had increased from $145 to $148 per ounce to $525. Production

and price trends continued the u pward trend in 1973.

Producer prices, which were un d er Government control much

of the year, increased by 10% to 50% in February, fluctuated

between narrow limits in June, and then advanced again in

late Septembe r. After price controls were removed from

most nonferrous metals in December , rhodium and iridium

in creased by another 14% to 15%. Ruthenium remained unchanged after a February increase to $60 per ounce, and

osmium stayed at $200 per ounce through the year. The dealer price of iridium jumped from $250 to $450 per ounce

in July, as the metal became s carce, and ended the year at $525 per ounce (Butterman, 1973, p. 1040).

PGM prices were mostly flat from 1975 through 1977. In 1977, the producer price for platinum was steady at $162 per ounce. The producer price for palladium began 1977 at $55 per ounce, increased to $60 in late January, and remained at
that level for the remainder of the year. The price of rhodium

was about $400 per ounce at the beginning of the year and

increased to $450 in March owing to increased industrial

demand and speculatio n regarding the use of rhodium in automotive catalytic converters. Iridium started the year at $300 per ounce, decreased to $250 in June and, returned to $300 for the remainder of the year. The price of osmium was $200 per ounce for the first 6 months of 1977 but declined to

around $150 in the last 6 months of the year owing to

continued weak demand. The price of ruthenium remained at around $60 per ounce throughout the year.

From 1978 to 1980, prices of platinum rose substantially owing to strong investor interest, chronic world inflation, and tight supply. In 1980, platinum, gold, and silver prices soared

as a result of speculative activity. The platinum dealers price peaked at $990 per ounce in March 1980. Palladium prices

moved up moderately in 1978 and more sharply in 1979 partly owing to increased investor interest. Rhodium prices increased only moderately in 1978, but in 1979 the price increased sharply. This was in response to larger purchases

of the metal by the automotive industry for use as automotive emissions control catalyst.

In 1981 and 1982, lower world demand for PGM resulted

in lower prices. In 1983, dealer prices for platinum and palladium increased substantially. A major South African producer, Rustenburg Platinum Holdings Ltd., suspended its producer prices for PGM and began selling most of its output

a t market prices. Platinum and palladium were recognized

more as world commodities rather than commodities controlled exclusively by South African producers. Trading activity in futures contracts on NYMEX increased substantially.

In 1984, the dealer price for rhodium nea rly doubled

becaus e of higher demand for rhodium in automobile three-way catalytic converters. The automotive industry became the dominant user of rhodium in the early 1980’s.

In 1 986, the dealer price for platinum increased by 60% owing to a work stoppage at Impala Platinum Holdings Ltd.

in South Africa and anticipation that U.S. imports of platinum

from Sout h Africa would be cut off because of the antiapartheid legislation passed by the U.S. Congress. PGM were later exempted from the Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986.

In December 1988, the platinum market reacted strongly to

an announcement by Ford Motor Company that i t had developed a platinum-free automobile catalyst. Spot platinum prices fell to $100 per ounce on the day of the announcement, and futures prices in New York fell the limit of $25 for two

consecutive days. The average dealer price for platinum in

December was $557 per ounce. By January 1989, the average price had fallen to $528 per ounce. From 1990 to 1998, the annual average New York dealer price of platinum fluctuated within the relatively narrow range of $375 and $475 per ounce. The price history of palladium

was similar. The price of rhodium, however, was dramatically

different.

In the late 1970’s , market economy countries began implement ing measures to reduce pollutants in automobile exhausts. The emphasis on controlling air pollution resulted

in increased demand for PGM. Palladium-rhodium and104 platinum-rhodium oxidation catalysts were developed for use in catalytic converters. The increased demand caused the

annual average price of rhodium to increase from $312 per

ounce in 1983 to $929 in 1985. From 1986 to 1988, the monthly average New York dealers price of rhodium ranged

from $1,150 to $1,300 per ounce. In early 1989, the

announcement of problems at South Africa’s Rustenburg

Platinum precious metals refinery caused the price to jump to

more than $2,000 per ounce. By July 3, 1990, rhodium was being quoted at $7,000 per o u nce. This level could not be sustained, but the price fell no lower than $4,100 per ounce in November, reached $4,500 in early December, and rose sharply to $5,300 in the last week of 1990. Starting in 1992,

the price trend of rhodium turn ed downward. This was brought on by recession in market economy countries,

redu ced sales of automobiles and, consequently, reduced

demand for automobile catalysts. Demand sank even lower

as U.S. automakers made wider use of palladium-only technology instead of platinum-rhod ium or palladium-rhodium catalysts. In January 1997, the rhodium price sank to $200

per ounce, its lowest level in nearly 24 years. Prices began to rise again in June, reaching a peak of $370 per ounce, as delayed shipments from Russia caused a shortage of supply.

The price retreated to $300 per ounce in August but rallied to $360 at yearend, following speculative buying in the United

State s. Prices continued to rise in 1998, reaching $640 in April, its highest level since 1994 (Platt’s Met als Week, 1998).

From 1990 to 1996, prices for ruthenium and iridium

remained mostly unchanged within narrow limits. Supply and demand were in balance and there was little or no upward

pressure on prices. At the start of 1997, strong consumer purchasing coupled with increasingly limited availability

caused the price of iridium to advance from $110 per ounce to $200 in late January. The price reached $290 in October

but eased slightly to $270 at yearend. Strong consumer purchasing and continued tight supply lifted the price to $575

in April 1998. The price subsequently began to ease, as

industrial demand slackened and the s u pply situation improved.

References Cited

Butterman, W.C., 1973, Platinum-group metals, in Minerals Yearbook, v. I: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 1037-1049. Conradie, A.S., 1997, Platinum-group metals, in South Africa’s mineral industry (14 th ed.): South Africa Department of Minerals and Industry, November, 216 p. Hilliard, H.E., and Dunning, B.W., 1983, Recovery of platinumgroup metals and gold from electronic scrap, in Lundy, D.E., and Zysk, E.D., eds., The platinum group metals—An in depth

view of the industry: 1983 IPMI International Seminar, Colonial Williamsburg, VA, April 10-13, 1983, p. 129-142

Platt’s Metals Week, 1998, Daily prices: Platt’s Metals Week, v. 69, no. 16, April 20, p. 17.

Roskill Information Services Ltd, 1991, The e conomics of platinum group metals (5 th ed.): Roskill Information Services Ltd, 203 p.
Ware, G.C., 1963, Platinum-group metals, in Minerals Yearbook, v. I: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 899-911.105 Annual Average Iridium Price (Dollars per troy ounce 1 )

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1911 62 1933 58 1955 103 1977 258

1912 65 1934 59 1956 105 1978 240

1913 65 1935 57 1957 105 1979 280

1914 65 1936 104 1958 77 1980 666

1915 83 1937 88 1959 77 1981 529

1916 94 1938 69 1960 76 1982 359

1917 150 1939 113 1961 72 1983 309

1918 175 1940 169 1962 72 1984 424

1919 255 1941 183 1963 73 1985 438

1920 331 1942 168 1964 85 1986 414

1921 195 1943 165 1965 100 1987 363

1922 200 1944 165 1966 145 1988 306

1923 NA 1945 165 1967 188 1989 303

1924 293 1946 139 1968 188 1990 307

1925 363 1947 92 1969 185 1991 283

1926 169 1948 108 1970 156 1992 158

1927 120 1949 104 1971 152 1993 47

1928 294 1950 146 1972 162 1994 66

1929 238 1951 200 1973 223 1995 55

1930 179 1952 192 1974 391 1996 68

1931 114 1953 178 1975 477 1997 218

1932 68 1954 213 1976 325 1998 430

NA Not available

1 To convert to dollars per kilogram, multiply by 32.1507.

Note: 1911-29, New York price of refined metal, in Hill., J.M., 1922, The marketing of platinum: Engineering & Mining Journal-Press, p.

718. 1930-66, Producer price at New York of 99%-pure iridium, in Engineering & Mining Journal, Mineral and Metal Markets. 1967-93, Metals Week New York Dealer, f.o.b. New York, spot, estimated market price for minimum 99%-pure iridium, in Metals Week [through June 14, 1993].
1993-98, Metals Week New York Dealer, f.o.b. New York, spot, estimated market price for minimum 99%-pure iridium, in Platt’s

Metals Week.

Annual Average Osmium Price (Dollars per troy ounce 1 )

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1930 67 1948 100 1966 350 1984 455

1931 67 1949 100 1967 400 1985 915

1932 62 1950 141 1968 400 1986 704

1933 63 1951 208 1969 335 1987 633

1934 68 1952 208 1970 215 1988 592

1935 50 1953 166 1971 210 1989 549

1936 55 1954 144 1972 212 1990 416

1937 57 1955 96 1973 200 1991 400

1938 57 1956 90 1974 200 1992 400

1939 57 1957 90 1975 200 1993 400

1940 57 1958 80 1976 200 1994 450

1941 47 1959 80 1977 130 1995 450

1942 47 1960 80 1978 130 1996 450

1943 50 1961 65 1979 130 1997 450

1944 50 1962 65 1980 130 1998 450

1945 50 1963 65 1981 130

1946 67 1964 95 1982 130

1947 100 1965 236 1983 132

1 To convert to dollars per kilogram, multiply by 32.1507.

Note: 1930-66, Producer price at New York of 99.5%-pure osmium, in Engineering & Mining Journal, Mineral and Metal Markets. 1967-93, Metals Week New York Dealer, f.o.b. New York, spot, estimated market price for minimum 99.5%-pure osmium, in Metals Week [through June 14, 1993]. 1993-98, Metals Week New York Dealer, f.o.b. New York, spot, estimated market price for minimum 99.5%-pure osmium, in Platt’s

Metals Week.106 Annual Average Platinum Price (Dollars per troy ounce 1 )

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1880 4 1910 33 1940 36 1970 133

1881 4 1911 43 1941 36 1971 121

1882 3 1912 45 1942 36 1972 121

1883 3 1913 45 1943 35 1973 150

1884 3 1914 45 1944 35 1974 181

1885 1 1915 47 1945 35 1975 164

1886 2 1916 83 1946 53 1976 162

1887 4 1917 103 1947 62 1977 157

1888 4 1918 106 1948 92 1978 261

1889 4 1919 115 1949 75 1979 445

1890 4 1920 111 1950 76 1980 677

1891 5 1921 75 1951 93 1981 446

1892 7 1922 98 1952 93 1982 327

1893 7 1923 117 1953 93 1983 424

1894 6 1924 119 1954 88 1984 357

1895 6 1925 119 1955 94 1985 291

1896 6 1926 113 1956 105 1986 461

1897 6 1927 85 1957 90 1987 553

1898 15 1928 79 1958 66 1988 523

1899 6 1929 68 1959 72 1989 507

1900 6 1930 44 1960 83 1990 467

1901 20 1931 32 1961 83 1991 371

1902 20 1932 32 1962 83 1992 361

1903 19 1933 31 1963 82 1993 375

1904 21 1934 34 1964 90 1994 411

1905 17 1935 33 1965 100 1995 425

1906 28 1936 42 1966 100 1996 398

1907 NA 1937 47 1967 111 1997 397

1908 21 1938 34 1968 117 1998 373

1909 25 1939 36 1969 124

NA Not available

1 To convert to dollars per kilogram, multiply by 32.1507.

Note: 1880-1910, Annual average price of crude platinum, in Mineral Resources of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey annual. 1911-29, New York price of refined metal, in Hill, J.M., 1922, The marketing of platinum: Engineering & Mining Journal-Press, p. 718. 1930-66, Producer price at New York of 99.9%-pure platinum, in Engineering & Mining Journal, Mineral and Metal Markets. 1967-93, New York price per troy ounce of 99.9%-pure platinum in 50-ounce lots, in Metals Week [through June 14, 1993]. 1993-98, New York price per troy ounce of 99.9%-pure platinum in 50-ounce lots, in Platt’s Metals Week.107 Annual Average Palladium Price (Dollars per troy ounce 1 )

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1911 55 1933 18 1955 22 1977 49

1912 55 1934 23 1956 24 1978 63

1913 50 1935 23 1957 24 1979 120

1914 44 1936 23 1958 17 1980 201

1915 56 1937 23 1959 19 1981 95

1916 67 1938 23 1960 25 1982 67

1917 110 1939 23 1961 25 1983 136

1918 135 1940 24 1962 25 1984 148

1919 130 1941 24 1963 25 1985 107

1920 108 1942 24 1964 31 1986 116

1921 59 1943 24 1965 33 1987 130

1922 60 1944 24 1966 34 1988 123

1923 NA 1945 24 1967 38 1989 144

1924 94 1946 24 1968 45 1990 114

1925 79 1947 24 1969 42 1991 87

1926 70 1948 24 1970 38 1992 89

1927 58 1949 24 1971 37 1993 123

1928 46 1950 24 1972 42 1994 156

1929 40 1951 24 1973 78 1995 153

1930 24 1952 24 1974 133 1996 130

1931 18 1953 24 1975 93 1997 184

1932 18 1954 21 1976 51 1998 290

NA Not available

1 To convert to dollars per kilogram, multiply by 32.1507.

Note: 1911-29, New York price of refined metal, in Hill, J.M., 1922, The marketing of platinum: Engineering & Mining Journal-Press, p. 718. 1930-66, Producer price at New York of 99.9%-pure palladium, in Engineering & Mining Journal, Mineral and Metal Markets. 1967-93, New York price per troy ounce of 99.9%-pure palladium in 100-ounce lots, in Metals Week [through June 14, 1993]. 1993-98, New York price per troy ounce of 99.9%-pure palladium in 100-ounce lots, in Platt’s Metals Week.

Annual Average Rhodium Price (Dollars per troy ounce 1 )

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1930 50 1948 125 1966 198 1984 607

1931 50 1949 125 1967 225 1985 929

1932 43 1950 125 1968 247 1986 1,157

1933 49 1951 125 1969 240 1987 1,222

1934 56 1952 125 1970 215 1988 1,218

1935 53 1953 125 1971 200 1989 1,300

1936 65 1954 123 1972 197 1990 3,565

1937 111 1955 121 1973 222 1991 3,739

1938 125 1956 121 1974 329 1992 2,465

1939 125 1957 121 1975 338 1993 1,066

1940 125 1958 121 1976 348 1994 636

1941 125 1959 123 1977 409 1995 463

1942 125 1960 136 1978 524 1996 300

1943 125 1961 139 1979 770 1997 298

1944 125 1962 139 1980 729 1998 620

1945 125 1963 139 1981 498

1946 125 1964 155 1982 323

1947 125 1965 183 1983 312

1 To convert to dollars per kilogram, multiply by 32.1507.

Note: 1930-66, Producer price at New York of 99.9%-pure rhodium, in Engineering & Mining Journal, Mineral and Metal Markets. 1967-76, Producer price at New York of 99.9%-pure rhodium, in Metals Week. 1977-93, Dealer price at New York of 99.9%-pure rhodium, in Metals Week [through June 14, 1993]. 1993-98, Dealer price at New York of 99.9%-pure rhodium, in Platt’s Metals Week.108 Annual Average Ruthenium Price (Dollars per troy ounce 1 )

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1930 42 1948 92 1966 57 1984 103

1931 41 1949 75 1967 58 1985 101

1932 41 1950 76 1968 58 1986 73

1933 42 1951 93 1969 56 1987 70

1934 45 1952 86 1970 53 1988 61

1935 40 1953 86 1971 52 1989 62

1936 38 1954 67 1972 52 1990 61

1937 40 1955 52 1973 59 1991 55

1938 37 1956 50 1974 60 1992 29

1939 37 1957 50 1975 60 1993 13

1940 37 1958 50 1976 60 1994 22

1941 37 1959 56 1977 35 1995 26

1942 37 1960 55 1978 33 1996 43

1943 35 1961 57 1979 32 1997 37

1944 35 1962 57 1980 35 1998 47

1945 35 1963 57 1981 32

1946 68 1964 57 1982 26

1947 62 1965 57 1983 28

1 To convert to dollars per kilogram, multiply by 32.1507.

Note: 1930-66, Producer price at New York of refined metal, in Engineering & Mining Journal, Mineral and Metal Markets. 1967-76, Producer price at New York of 99.9%-pure ruthenium, in Metals Week. 1977-93, Dealer price at New York of 99.9%-pure ruthenium, in Metals Week [through June 14, 1993]. 1993-98, Dealer price at New York of 99.9%-pure ruthenium, in Platt’s Metals Week.109 

### Yearend Cerium Metal Price (Dollars per kilogram)

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars

Current dollars



### Yearend Dysprosium Metal Price (Dollars per kilogram)

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars

Current dollars 

# Ce, Dy, Er, Eu, Gd, Ho, La, Lu, Nd, Pr, Pm, Sm, Sc, Tb, Tm, Yb, Y

Rare-Earth Metals

by James B. Hedrick110 

### Yearend Erbium Metal Price (Dollars per kilogram)

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars

Current dollars



### Yearend Europium Metal Price (Dollars per kilogram)

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars

Current dollars111 

### Yearend Gadolinium Metal Price (Dollars per kilogram)

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars

Current dollars



### Yearend Holmium Metal Price (Dollars per kilogram)

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars

Current dollars112 

### Yearend Lanthanum Metal Price (Dollars per kilogram)

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars

Current dollars



### Yearend Lutetium Metal Price (Dollars per kilogram)

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars

Current dollars113 

### Yearend Neodymium Metal Price (Dollars per kilogram)

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars

Current dollars



### Yearend Praseodymium Metal Price (Dollars per kilogram)

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars

Current dollars114 

### Yearend Samarium Metal Price (Dollars per kilogram)

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars
Current dollars



### Yearend Scandium Metal Price (Dollars per kilogram)

0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000

1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars

Current dollars115 

### Yearend Thulium Metal Price (Dollars per kilogram)

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars

Current dollars 

### Yearend Terbium Metal Price (Dollars per kilogram)

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars

Current dollars116 

## Yearend Ytterbium Metal Price (Dollars per kilogram)

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars

Current dollars



### Yearend Yttrium Metal Price (Dollars per kilogram)

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars

Current dollars117 Significant events affecting rare-earth metal prices

1958-71 Rare-earth supply increases

1971-78 Stable supply and demand

1979-81 Economic recession

1984 Scandium import supply cut

1985 U.S. environmental regulations limit lead in gasoline, reducing demand for rare-earth-containing petroleum fluid cracking

catalysts

1980-90’s Increased production fr o m China increased demand for permanent magnets, automotive catalytic converters, and

rechargeable batteries

The rare earths are defined as the 17 elements comprised of scandium, yttrium, and the 15 lanthanides (Leigh, 1990). Promethium, one of the lanthani de group of elements, is radioactive. Except for very minor occurrences of this

element in nature, most commercially available ma terial is

created in the laboratory. Of the 13 isotopes known to occur, promethium's half-lives are short , existing for only a few

second s to a few years. Because it is used in very small quantit ies and isotope price data is typically based on its radioactivity, promethium prices are not include d in this

report.
Prices of co mmercial quantities of a complete range of

rare-earth metals were first quoted in the United States in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s. Prices decreased considerably

as availa bility and extraction technology improved. Separation technology and metallurgical methods advanced in

the years after Swedish chemist and mineralogist Carl Gustav Mosander first prepared metallic cerium in 1827 (Mosander, 1827).

Mosander prepared the first rare-earth metal by reducing cerous chloride with potassium in a hydrogen atmosphere to produce an impure po w dered metal (Mosander, 1827). August Beri

nger in 1842, Jean-Charles G. de Marginac in 1853, and Friedr ich Wöhler in 1867 used different sodium

processes to reduce cerous chloride. In 1875, metallurgists

were successful in producing fairly pure cerium, lanthanum,

and didymium metals by electrolysis of molten rare-earth halides (Hillebrand and Norton, 1875). Subsequent work by different metallurgists contributed to electrowinning of other rare-earth metals. M. Billy and F. Trombe improved on the electrolytic method in the 1930’s by producing higher-purity

rare-earth metals of

cerium, lanthanum, and neodymium (Billy and Trombe, 1931; Trombe, 1932, 1933). In the early 1950’s, P.M.J. Gray was believed to be the first to exclude air

and moisture in the electrowinning cell, us ing an argon atmosphere to produce cerium m etal from cerium dioxide dissolved in an electrolyte (Gray, 1951-52).

Promethium metal was not prepared until 1963 when F. Weigel applied reduction of the fluoride (Weigel, 1963). The first large-scale application of rare-earth metals began

when Auer von Welsbach patented a pyrophoric alloy that comprised 70% mis c hmetal (a natural mixture of metallic

rare-earth elements as derived from ore) and 30% iron in 1903 (Greinacher, 1981). Five years later, the mischmetaliron alloy was commercially marketed in an ignition system for incandescent gas lamps. The use of the lamp mantle and

mischmetal-iron alloy peaked by 1912, after which electric lighting came into general use. The alloy’s use continues today as the “flint” in disposable lighters, camping lanterns,

and campfire starter sticks and the sparkers used to ignite laboratory and welding gases.

Rare-earth metals in pure form were first prepared in 1931 (Gschneidner, 1988). In the 1940’s, some applications were

found for alloying rare-earth metals with ductile iron, but significant uses were not developed until the late 1960’s. The

use of individual rare-earth metals remained small until the

1950’s when separation and metallurgical techn ologies improved. Demand then increased as lower cost individual

rare-earth metals became available.

Rare-earth metal prices vary cons iderably depending on purity and quantity. Price fluctuations in the late 1950’s to

1998 were affecte d primarily by supply and demand,

environmental legislation, and economic factors, especially inflation and energy costs.

The decline in rare-earth metal pric es during the period

from 1958-71 resulted from the opening of the large rareearths deposit at Mountain Pas s, California, in 1952. The period was characterized by widespread commercialization of

the individual rare earths, including compounds and metals.

A significant development in the late 1960’s was the acceptance of rare-earth silicide, and later, mischmetal, as an additive in high-strength low-alloy (HSLA) steels.

From 1971-78, the rare-earth supply continued to grow and

demand kept pace. Demand for mischmetal increased late in

the period as a result of its use in ste el for the Alaskan oil pipeline. Beginning in 1978, prices for the rare-earth metals

were tied primarily to the U.S. economy. D ouble-digit

i nflation and higher energy costs increased operating costs throughout the mining industry. Rare-earth metal prices

followed the trend and began increasing in 1979 to offset higher operating costs.

After the 1981-82 recession, as the economy improved and118 inflation subsided, rare-earth metal prices stabilized, for the

most part. The exception during this period was scandium.

The main source of scandium at this time, the Soviet Union,

ceased exports in 1984, reportedly bec ause of internal

demand for laser research. The price for scandium rose to an

astronomical $75,000 per kilogram. Scandium’s price

decreased markedly the following year as production in the United States came on-line (Hedrick, 1987a).

In 1985, demand for the rare earths used in petroleum fluid-cracking catalysts, their principal market, dropped sharply. The rapid decline was the result of environmental legislat ion reducing the amount of lead allowed in gasoline.

This legislation caused the refinery industry to switch to fluidcracking catalysts that used significantly lower amounts of

rare earths. With demand down, U.S. mine production

decreased by nearly 50% in 1985, result ing in a substantial

increase in rare-earth metal prices the following year (Hedrick, 1987b).

Prices for rare-earth metals in the 1980’s and 1990’s were

mixed. Growth in the rare-earth industry between 1986 and

1998 was primarily in the markets for individual high-purity products. Rare-earth metal demand in this period was greatest for neodymium metal used in high-strength neodymium-iron-boron (NIB) permanent magnet alloys.

Prices for neodymium and the NIB alloying agent, dysprosium, increased in the mid-1980’s as demand

increased. As a result of the increased NIB magnet demand, demand and price decreased for samarium metal used in the higher cost samarium-cobalt magnets. The price of cerium

metal increased in 1992 as demand increased for cerium compounds used in automotive catalytic converters.

Lanthanum’s price increased in the mid-1990’s as demand

increased f

or lanthanum-nickel metal hydride rechargeable

batteries used primarily in cordless tools, camcorders, cellular phones, and laptop computers. The price of yttrium metal

declined in 1990, as low-cost yttrium from southern China

became widely available on world markets. Europium’s price declined in 1995, as low-cost Chinese material pushed prices

lower amid strong international competition. Prices for most
other rare-earth metals stayed fairly stable or declined because of small demand and limited applications. References Cited

Billy, Maurice, and Trombe, Félix, 1931, Préparation de cérium

pur [Preparation of pure cerium]: Paris, Gauthi e r-Villars, Comptes Rendus des Séances de l'Académie des Sciences, no. 10, v. 193, September 7, p. 421-423. Gray, P.M.J., 1951-52, The production of pure cerium metal by electrolytic and thermal-reduction processes: Transactions of the Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, v. 61, p. 141-170. Greinacher, Ekkehard, 1981, History of rare earth applications,

Rare earth market today, chap. 1 of Industrial application of

the rare earth elements: American Chemical Society Symposium Series 164, p. 3-17. Gschneidner, K.A., Jr., 1988, Past, present, and future of rare

earth metallurgy in 1787- 1 987—Two hundred years of rare earths: New York, Rare-earth Information Center and North-Holland, p. 23-32. Hedrick, J.B., 1987a, Other metals, in Minerals Yearbook 1985, v. I: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 1096-1097. ———1987b, Rare-earth minerals a n d metals, in Minerals Yearbook 1985, v. I: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 741-803. Hillebrand, W.F., and Norton, T.H., 1875, Elektrolytisch Abscheidung des Cers, Lanthans und Didyms [Electrolytic deposition of cerium, lanthanum, and didymium]: Leipzig, Germany, Annalen der Physik und Chemie, (Poggendorff), no. 8, v. 155 , p. 633-639. Leigh, G.J., ed., 1990, Nomenclature of inorg anic chemistryrecommendations 1990: Oxford, Blackwell Scientific Publications, p. 43. Mosander, C.G., 1827, Einiges über das Cerium [Something about cerium]: Liepzig, Germany, Annalen der Physik, (Poggendorff), v. 11, p. 406-416. Trombe, Félix, 1932, Préparation de lanthane métallique exempt
de fer et de silicium [Pr eparation of silicon-free lanthanum metal]: Paris, Comptes Rendus des Séances de l'Académie des Sciences, v. 194, p. 1653-1655. ———1933, Préparation du néodyme métallique exempt de fer

et de silicium [Preparation of silicon-free neodymium metal]: Paris, C omptes Rendus des Séances de l'Académie des Sciences, v. 196, p. 704-706. Weigel, Fritz, 1963, Darstellung von metallischem Promethium [Preparation of metallic promethium]: Weinheim, Germany, Angewandte Chemie, v. 75, May 21, p. 451.119 Yearend Cerium Metal Price (Dollars per kilogram)

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1959 330.00 1969 110.23 1979 108.00 1989 175.00

1960 330.00 1970 88.18 1980 115.00 1990 175.00

1961 330.00 1971 88.18 1981 125.00 1991 175.00

1962 330.00 1972 88.18 1982 125.00 1992 350.00

1963 304.24 1973 88.18 1983 125.00 1993 350.00

1964 160.94 1974 88.18 1984 125.00 1994 350.00

1965 174.17 1975 88.18 1985 125.00 1995 350.00

1966 165.35 1976 88.18 1986 175.00 1996 350.00

1967 154.32 1977 88.18 1987 175.00 1997 350.00

1968 154.32 1978 88.18 1988 175.00 1998 350.00

Note: 1959-62, 100- to 450-gram metal ingot prices, 99.9% nominal purity, provided by American Potash & Chemical Corp. 1963, 1- to 4-pound metal ingot prices, 99.9% nominal purity, provided by American Potash & Chemical Corp. 1964, 1967-78, 2- to 10-pound metal ingot price, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals. 1965-66, 1- tp 5-pound metal ingot price, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals. 1979-88, 1-kilogram metal ingot, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals. 1989-94, 1-kilogram metal ingots, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Rhône-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co. 1995-97, 1- to 5-kilogram cast metal ingots, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Rhône-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co. 1998, 1- to 5-kilogram cast metal ingots, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Rhodia, Inc.

Yearend Dysprosium Metal Price (Dollars per kilogram)

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1959 730.00 1969 308.65 1979 270.00 1989 500.00

1960 730.00 1970 308.65 1980 300.00 1990 500.00

1961 730.00 1971 264.55 1981 300.00 1991 500.00

1962 730.00 1972 264.55 1982 300.00 1992 500.00

1963 661.39 1973 264.55 1983 300.00 1993 500.00

1964 526.90 1974 264.55 1984 300.00 1994 500.00

1965 559.97 1975 264.00 1985 300.00 1995 500.00

1966 275.58 1976 264.55 1986 630.00 1996 500.00

1967 341.72 1977 264.55 1987 630.00 1997 500.00

1968 341.72 1978 264.55 1988 630.00 1998 500.00

Note: 1959-62, 100- to 450-gram metal ingot prices, 99.9% nominal purity, provided by American Potash & Chemical Corp. 1963, 1- to 4-pound metal ingot prices, 99.9% nominal purity, provided by American Potash & Chemical Corp. 1964, 1967-78, 2- to 10-pound metal ingot price, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals. 1965, "over 1 pound" metal ingot prices, provided by Research Chemicals. 1966, 1- to 5-pound metal ingot price, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals. 1979-88, 1-kilogram metal ingot, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals. 1989-94, 1-kilogram metal ingots, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Rhône-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co. 1995-97, 1- to 5-kilogram cast metal ingots, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Rhône-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co. 1998, 1- to 5-kilogram cast metal ingots, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Rhodia, Inc.120 Yearend Erbium Metal Price (Dollars per kilogram)

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1959 730.00 1969 352.74 1979 450.00 1989 725.00

1960 730.00 1970 683.43 1980 530.00 1990 725.00

1961 730.00 1971 308.65 1981 650.00 1991 725.00

1962 730.00 1972 308.65 1982 650.00 1992 725.00

1963 661.39 1973 308.65 1983 650.00 1993 725.00

1964 632.73 1974 308.65 1984 650.00 1994 725.00

1965 694.46 1975 308.65 1985 650.00 1995 725.00

1966 595.25 1976 308.65 1986 725.00 1996 725.00

1967 396.83 1977 308.65 1987 725.00 1997 725.00

1968 396.83 1978 308.65 1988 725.00 1998 725.00

Note: 1959-62, 100- to 450-gram metal ingot prices, 99.9% nominal purity, provided by American Potash & Chemical Corp.
1963, 1- to 4-pound metal ingot prices, 99.9% nominal purity, provided by American Potash & Chemical Corp. 1964, 1967-78, 2- to 10-pound metal ingot price, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals. 1965, "over 1 pound" metal ingot prices, provided by Research Chemicals. 1966, 1- to 5-pound metal ingot price, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals. 1979-88, 1-kilogram metal ingot, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals. 1989-94, 1-kilogram metal ingots, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Rhône-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co. 1995-97, 1- to 5-kilogram cast metal ingots, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Rhône-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co. 1998, 1-5 kilogram cast metal ingots, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Rhodia, Inc.

Yearend Europium Metal Price (Dollars per kilogram)

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1959 9,250.00 1969 7,054.79 1979 6,500.00 1989 7,600.00

1960 9,250.00 1970 7,054.79 1980 7,000.00 1990 7,600.00

1961 9,250.00 1971 5,952.48 1981 7,500.00 1991 7,600.00

1962 9,250.00 1972 5,952.48 1982 7,500.00 1992 7,600.00

1963 3,306.93 1973 5,952.48 1983 7,500.00 1993 7,600.00

1964 4,645.14 1974 5,952.48 1984 7,500.00 1994 7,600.00

1965 11,023.11 1975 5,952.48 1985 7,500.00 1995 5,600.00

1966 11,023.11 1976 5,952.48 1986 7,600.00 1996 5,600.00

1967 7,936.64 1977 5,952.48 1987 7,600.00 1997 5,600.00

1968 7,936.64 1978 5,952.48 1988 7,600.00 1998 6,500.00

Note: 1959-62, 100- to 450-gram metal ingot prices, 99.9% nominal purity, provided by American Potash & Chemical Corp. 1963, 1- to 4-pound metal ingot prices, 99.9% nominal purity, provided by American Potash & Chemical Corp. 1964, 1- to 2-pound metal ingot prices, 99.9% nominal purity, provided by Research Chemicals. 1965-66, 1- to 5-pound metal ingot price, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals. 1967-78, 2- to 10-pound metal ingot price, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals. 1979-88, 1-kilogram metal ingot, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals. 1989-94, 1-kilogram metal ingots, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Rhône-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co. 1995-97, 1- to 5-kilogram cast metal ingots, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Rhône-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co. 1998, 1- to 5-kilogram cast metal ingots, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Rhodia, Inc.121 Yearend Gadolinium Metal Price (Dollars per kilogram)

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1959 730.00 1969 485.02 1979 430.00 1989 500.00

1960 730.00 1970 485.02 1980 440.00 1990 500.00

1961 730.00 1971 462.97 1981 485.00 1991 500.00

1962 730.00 1972 462.97 1982 485.00 1992 500.00

1963 462.97 1973 462.97 1983 485.00 1993 500.00

1964 568.79 1974 462.97 1984 485.00 1994 500.00

1965 537.93 1975 462.97 1985 485.00 1995 500.00

1966 551.16 1976 462.97 1986 500.00 1996 500.00

1967 507.06 1977 462.97 1987 500.00 1997 500.00

1968 507.06 1978 462.97 1988 500.00 1998 400.00

Note: 1959-62, 100- to 450-gram metal ingot prices, 99.9% nominal purity, provided by American Potash & Chemical Corp. 1963, 1- to 4-pound metal ingot prices, 99.9% nominal purity, provided by American Potash & Chemical Corp. 1964, 1967-78, 2- to 10-pound metal ingot price, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals. 1965, "over 1 pound" metal ingot prices, provided by Research Chemicals. 1966, 1- to 5-pound metal ingot price, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals. 1979-88, 1-kilogram metal ingot, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals. 1989-94, 1-kilogram metal ingots, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Rhône-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co. 1995-97, 1- to 5-kilogram cast metal ingots, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Rhône-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co. 1998, 1- to 5-kilogram cast metal ingots, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Rhodia, Inc.

Yearend Holmium Metal Price (Dollars per kilogram)

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1959 730.00 1969 628.32 1979 1,100.00 1989 1,600.00

1960 730.00 1970 628.32 1980 1,400.00 1990 1,400.00

1961 730.00 1971 606.27 1981 1,600.00 1991 1,400.00

1962 730.00 1972 606.27 1982 1,600.00 1992 1,400.00

1963 661.39 1973 606.27 1983 1,600.00 1993 1,400.00

1964 897.28 1974 606.27 1984 1,600.00 1994 1,400.00

1965 1,080.27 1975 606.27 1985 1,600.00 1995 1,200.00

1966 992.08 1976 606.27 1986 1,600.00 1996 1,200.00

1967 815.71 1977 606.27 1987 1,600.00 1997 1,200.00

1968 815.71 1978 606.27 1988 1,600.00 1998 1,200.00

Note: 1959-62, 100- to 450-gram metal ingot prices, 99.9% nominal purity, provided by American Potash & Chemical Corp. 1963, 1- to 4-pound metal ingot prices, 99.9% nominal purity, provided by American Potash & Chemical Corp. 1964, 1967-78, 2- to 10-pound metal ingot price, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals. 1965, "over 1 pound" metal ingot prices, provided by Research Chemicals. 1966, 1- to 5-pound metal ingot price, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals. 1979-88, 1-kilogram metal ingot, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals. 1989-94, 1-kilogram metal ingots, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Rhône-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co. 1995-97, 1- to 5-kilogram cast metal ingots, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Rhône-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co. 1998, 1- to 5-kilogram cast metal ingots, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Rhodia, Inc.122 Yearend Lanthanum Metal Price (Dollars per kilogram)

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1959 340.00 1969 110.23 1979 108.00 1989 150.00

1960 340.00 1970 110.23 1980 115.00 1990 150.00

1961 340.00 1971 88.18 1981 125.00 1991 150.00

1962 340.00 1972 88.18 1982 125.00 1992 150.00

1963 308.65 1973 88.18 1983 125.00 1993 150.00

1964 160.94 1974 88.18 1984 125.00 1994 150.00

1965 189.60 1975 88.18 1985 125.00 1995 350.00

1966 165.35 1976 88.18 1986 150.00 1996 350.00

1967 154.32 1977 88.18 1987 150.00 1997 350.00

1968 154.32 1978 88.18 1988 150.00 1998 350.00

Note: 1959-62, 100- to 450-gram metal ingot prices, 99.9% nominal purity, provided by American Potash & Chemical Corp. 1963, 1- to 4-pound metal ingot prices, 99.9% nominal purity, provided by American Potash & Chemical Corp. 1964, 1967-78, 2- to 10-pound metal ingot price, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals. 1965-66, 1- to 5-pound metal ingot price, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals. 1979-88, 1-kilogram metal ingot, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals. 1989-94, 1-kilogram metal ingots, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Rhône-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co. 1995-97, 1- to 5-kilogram cast metal ingots, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Rhône-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co. 1998, 1- to 5-kilogram cast metal ingots, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Rhodia, Inc.

Yearend Lutetium Metal Price (Dollars per kilogram)

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1959 8,580.00 1969 14,330.05 1979 13,200.00 1989 14,200.00

1960 8,580.00 1970 14,330.05 1980 12,900.00 1990 13,000.00

1961 8,580.00 1971 12,125.42 1981 14,200.00 1991 13,000.00

1962 8,580.00 1972 12,125.42 1982 14,200.00 1992 13,000.00

1963 9,369.65 1973 12,125.42 1983 14,200.00 1993 13,000.00

1964 14,550.51 1974 12,125.42 1984 14,200.00 1994 13,000.00

1965 14,550.51 1975 12,125.42 1985 14,200.00 1995 9,000.00

1966 17,636.98 1976 12,125.42 1986 14,200.00 1996 9,000.00

1967 16,534.67 1977 12,125.42 1987 14,200.00 1997 9,000.00

1968 16,534.67 1978 12,125.42 1988 14,200.00 1998 7,500.00

Note: 1959-62, 100- to 450-gram metal ingot prices, 99.9% nominal purity, provided by American Potash & Chemical Corp. 1963, 1- to 4-pound metal ingot prices, 99.9% nominal purity, provided by American Potash & Chemical Corp. 1964-66, 1- to 2-pound metal ingot prices, provided by Research Chemicals. 1967-73, 1- to 25-pound metal ingot prices, provided by American Potash & Chemical Corp. 1974-78, 2- to 10-pound metal ingot price, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals. 1979-88, 1-kilogram metal ingot, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals. 1989-94, 1-kilogram metal ingots, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Rhône-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co. 1995-97, 1- to 5-kilogram cast metal ingots, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Rhône-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co. 1998, 1- to 5-kilogram cast metal ingots, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Rhodia, Inc.123 Yearend Neodymium Metal Price (Dollars per kilogram)

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1959 420.00 1969 220.46 1979 250.00 1989 340.00

1960 420.00 1970 242.51 1980 260.00 1990 340.00

1961 420.00 1971 220.46 1981 260.00 1991 340.00

1962 420.00 1972 220.46 1982 260.00 1992 340.00

1963 385.81 1973 220.46 1983 260.00 1993 340.00

1964 348.33 1974 220.46 1984 260.00 1994 340.00

1965 370.38 1975 220.46 1985 260.00 1995 450.00

1966 330.69 1976 220.46 1986 280.00 1996 450.00

1967 253.53 1977 220.46 1987 280.00 1997 450.00

1968 253.53 1978 220.46 1988 280.00 1998 450.00

Note: 1959-62, 100- to 450-gram metal ingot prices, 99.9% nominal purity, provided by American Potash & Chemical Corp. 1963, 1- to 4-pound metal ingot prices, 99.9% nominal purity, provided by American Potash & Chemical Corp. 1964, 1967-78, 2- to 10-pound metal ingot price, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals. 1965-66, 1- to 5-pound metal ingot price, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals. 1979-88, 1-kilogram metal ingot, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals. 1989-97, 1- to 5-kilogram cast metal ingots, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Rhône-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co. 1998, 1- to 5-kilogram cast metal ingots, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Rhodia, Inc.

Yearend Praseodymium Metal Price (Dollars per kilogram)

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1959 420.00 1969 374.79 1979 290.00 1989 540.00

1960 420.00 1970 374.79 1980 310.00 1990 540.00

1961 420.00 1971 352.74 1981 310.00 1991 540.00

1962 420.00 1972 352.74 1982 310.00 1992 540.00

1963 385.81 1973 352.74 1983 310.00 1993 540.00

1964 412.26 1974 352.74 1984 310.00 1994 540.00

1965 401.24 1975 352.74 1985 310.00 1995 540.00

1966 407.86 1976 352.74 1986 400.00 1996 540.00

1967 385.81 1977 352.74 1987 400.00 1997 540.00

1968 385.81 1978 352.74 1988 400.00 1998 540.00

Note: 1959-62, 100- to 450-gram metal ingot prices, 99.9% nominal purity, provided by American Potash & Chemical Corp. 1963, 1- to 4-pound metal ingot prices, 99.9% nominal purity, provided by American Potash & Chemical Corp. 1964, 1967-78, 2- to 10-pound metal ingot price, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals. 1965-66, 1- to 5-pound metal ingot price, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals. 1979-88, 1-kilogram metal ingot, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals. 1989-97, 1- to 5-kilogram cast metal ingots, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Rhône-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co. 1998, 1- to 5-kilogram cast metal ingots, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Rhodia, Inc.124 Yearend Samarium Metal Price (Dollars per kilogram)

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1959 440.00 1969 308.65 1979 280.00 1989 395.00

1960 440.00 1970 319.67 1980 300.00 1990 340.00

1961 440.00 1971 297.62 1981 330.00 1991 340.00

1962 440.00 1972 297.62 1982 330.00 1992 300.00

1963 396.83 1973 297.62 1983 330.00 1993 300.00

1964 407.86 1974 297.62 1984 330.00 1994 300.00

1965 687.84 1975 297.62 1985 330.00 1995 300.00

1966 485.02 1976 297.62 1986 395.00 1996 300.00

1967 352.74 1977 297.62 1987 395.00 1997 300.00

1968 352.74 1978 297.62 1988 395.00 1998 300.00

Note: 1959-62, 100- to 450-gram metal ingot prices, 99.9% nominal purity, provided by American Potash & Chemical Corp. 1963, 1- to 4-pound metal ingot prices, 99.9% nominal purity, provided by American Potash & Chemical Corp. 1964, 1967-78, 2- to 10-pound metal ingot price, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals. 1965, "over 1 pound" metal ingot prices, provided by Research Chemicals. 1966, 1- to 5-pound metal ingot price, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals. 1979-88, 1-kilogram metal ingot, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals. 1989-94, 1-kilogram metal ingots, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Rhône-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co. 1995-97, 2- to 5-kilogram cast metal ingots, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Rhône-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co. 1998, 2- to 5-kilogram cast metal ingots, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Rhodia, Inc.

Yearend Scandium Metal Price (Dollars per kilogram)

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1959 NA 1969 7,936.64 1979 6,600.00 1989 21,500.00

1960 NA 1970 7,936.64 1980 7,200.00 1990 12,000.00

1961 NA 1971 6,172.94 1981 8,000.00 1991 8,400.00

1962 35,000.00 1972 6,172.94 1982 11,000.00 1992 10,000.00

1963 35,000.00 1973 6,172.94 1983 11,000.00 1993 10,000.00

1964 11,889.53 1974 6,172.94 1984 75,000.00 1994 10,000.00

1965 10,000.00 1975 6,172.94 1985 30,000.00 1995 18,000.00

1966 10,000.00 1976 6,172.94 1986 25,000.00 1996 18,000.00

1967 7,936.64 1977 6,172.94 1987 25,000.00 1997 18,000.00

1968 7,936.64 1978 6,172.94 1988 25,000.00 1998 18,000.00

NA Not available.

Note: 1962, 1-pound metal ingot prices, 99.5+% purity, provided by Atomergic Chemetals, Div. of Gallard Schlesinger. 1963, 100- to 400-gram metal ingot prices, 99.5+% purity, provided by Atomergic Chemetals, Div. of Gallard Schlesinger. 1964, 1971-78, 1- to 2-pound metal ingot price, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals. 1965-66, 227- to 454-gram metal ingot price, provided by Research Chemicals. 1967-70, 1989-92, 2- to 10-pound metal ingot price, provided by Research Chemicals. 1979-88, 1-kilogram metal ingot, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals. 1989-94, 1-kilogram metal ingots, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Rhône-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co. 1995-97, 1- to 5-kilogram cast metal ingots, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Rhône-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co. 1998, 1- to 5-kilogram cast metal ingots, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Rhodia, Inc.125 Yearend Terbium Metal Price (Dollars per kilogram)

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1959 3,750.00 1969 1,543.24 1979 2,000.00 1989 2,800.00

1960 3,750.00 1970 1,543.24 1980 2,300.00 1990 2,800.00

1961 3,750.00 1971 1,543.24 1981 2,800.00 1991 2,800.00

1962 3,750.00 1972 1,543.24 1982 2,800.00 1992 2,800.00

1963 2,314.85 1973 1,543.24 1983 2,800.00 1993 2,800.00

1964 2,843.96 1974 1,807.79 1984 2,800.00 1994 2,800.00

1965 2,411.86 1975 1,807.79 1985 2,800.00 1995 2,200.00

1966 2,425.08 1976 1,807.79 1986 2,800.00 1996 2,200.00

1967 1,895.98 1977 1,807.79 1987 2,800.00 1997 2,200.00

1968 1,895.98 1978 1,807.79 1988 2,800.00 1998 1,300.00

Note: 1959-62, 100- to 450-gram metal ingot prices, 99.9% nominal purity, provided by American Potash & Chemical Corp. 1963, 1- to 4-pound metal ingot prices, 99.9% nominal purity, provided by American Potash & Chemical Corp. 1964, 1- to 2-pound metal ingot prices, 99.9% nominal purity, provided by Research Chemicals. 1965, "over 1 pound" metal ingot prices, provided by Research Chemicals. 1966, 1- to 5-pound metal ingot price, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals. 1967-78, 2- to 10-pound metal ingot price, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals. 1979-88, 1-kilogram metal ingot, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals. 1989-94, 1-kilogram metal ingots, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Rhône-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co. 1995-97, 1- to 5-kilogram cast metal ingots, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Rhône-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co. 1998, 1- to 5-kilogram cast metal ingots, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Rhodia, Inc.

Yearend Thulium Metal Price (Dollars per kilogram)

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1959 4,620.00 1969 6,062.71 1979 7,000.00 1989 8,000.00

1960 4,620.00 1970 6,062.71 1980 6,900.00 1990 6,500.00

1961 4,620.00 1971 5,291.09 1981 8,000.00 1991 6,500.00

1962 4,620.00 1972 5,291.09 1982 8,000.00 1992 6,500.00

1963 8,377.57 1973 5,291.09 1983 8,000.00 1993 6,500.00

1964 12,387.77 1974 5,291.09 1984 8,000.00 1994 6,500.00

1965 8,818.49 1975 5,291.09 1985 8,000.00 1995 6,500.00

1966 13,227.74 1976 5,291.09 1986 8,000.00 1996 6,500.00

1967 8,818.49 1977 5,291.09 1987 8,000.00 1997 6,500.00

1968 8,818.49 1978 5,291.09 1988 8,000.00 1998 6,500.00

Note: 1959-62, 100- to 450-gram metal ingot prices, 99.9% nominal purity, provided by American Potash & Chemical Corp. 1963, 1- to 4-pound metal ingot prices, 99.9% nominal purity, provided by American Potash & Chemical Corp. 1964, 1- to 2-pound metal ingot prices, 99.9% nominal purity, provided by Research Chemicals. 1965-66, 1- to 25-pound metal ingot price, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by American Potash & Chemical Corp. 1967-78, 2- to 10-pound metal ingot price, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals. 1965-66, 1- to 5-pound metal ingot price, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals. 1979-88, 1-kilogram metal ingot, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals. 1989-94, 1-kilogram metal ingots, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Rhône-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co. 1995-97, 1- to 5-kilogram cast metal ingots, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Rhône-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co. 1998, 1- to 5-kilogram cast metal ingots, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Rhodia, Inc.126 Yearend Ytterbium Metal Price (Dollars per kilogram)

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1959 1,260.00 1969 529.11 1979 720.00 1989 1,000.00

1960 1,260.00 1970 628.32 1980 825.00 1990 1,200.00

1961 1,260.00 1971 507.06 1981 875.00 1991 1,200.00

1962 1,260.00 1972 507.06 1982 875.00 1992 1,200.00

1963 1,047.20 1973 507.06 1983 875.00 1993 1,200.00

1964 654.77 1974 507.06 1984 875.00 1994 1,200.00

1965 994.28 1975 507.06 1985 875.00 1995 1,600.00

1966 903.90 1976 507.06 1986 1,000.00 1996 1,600.00

1967 573.20 1977 507.06 1987 1,000.00 1997 1,600.00

1968 573.20 1978 507.06 1988 1,000.00 1998 1,600.00

Note: 1959-62, 100- to 450-gram metal ingot prices, 99.9% nominal purity, provided by American Potash & Chemical Corp. 1963, 1- to 4-pound metal ingot prices, 99.9% nominal purity, provided by American Potash & Chemical Corp. 1964, 1967-78, 2- to 10-pound metal ingot price, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals. 1965, "over 1 pound" metal ingot prices, provided by Research Chemicals. 1966, 1- to 5- pound metal ingot price, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals. 1979-88, 1-kilogram metal ingot, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals. 1989-94, 1-kilogram metal ingots, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Rhône-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co. 1995-97, 1- to 5-kilogram cast metal ingots, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Rhône-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co. 1998, 1- to 5-kilogram cast metal ingots, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Rhodia, Inc.

Yearend Yttrium Metal Price (Dollars per kilogram)

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1959 540.00 1969 319.67 1979 320.00 1989 510.00

1960 540.00 1970 352.74 1980 390.00 1990 340.00

1961 540.00 1971 308.65 1981 430.00 1991 340.00

1962 540.00 1972 308.65 1982 430.00 1992 340.00

1963 716.50 1973 308.65 1983 430.00 1993 340.00

1964 654.77 1974 308.65 1984 430.00 1994 340.00

1965 449.74 1975 308.65 1985 510.00 1995 450.00

1966 396.83 1976 308.65 1986 510.00 1996 450.00

1967 352.74 1977 308.65 1987 510.00 1997 450.00

1968 352.74 1978 308.65 1988 510.00 1998 450.00

Note: 1959-62, 100- to 450-gram metal ingot prices, 99.9% nominal purity, provided by American Potash & Chemical Corp. 1963, 1- to 4-pound metal ingot prices, 99.9% nominal purity, provided by American Potash & Chemical Corp. 1964, 1967-78, 2- to 10-pound metal ingot price, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals. 1965-66, 1- to 5-pound metal ingot price, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals. 1979-88, 1-kilogram metal ingot, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Research Chemicals. 1989-94, 1-kilogram metal ingots, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Rhône-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co. 1995-97, 1- to 5-kilogram cast metal ingots, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Rhône-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co. 1998, 1- to 5-kilogram cast metal ingots, from 99.9%-grade oxides, provided by Rhodia, Inc.127 

## U.S. Rhenium Metal Powder Price (Dollars per gram)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars

Current dollars 

# Re

Rhenium

by John W. Blossom

Significant events affecting rhenium prices since 1958

1970 Start of rhenium use in catalysts to make unleaded gasoline

1980 Doubling of percentage of rhenium in catalysts used to make unleaded gasoline

1991 Dissolution of the Soviet Union

Ida (Tache) and Walter Noddack , German chemists, are generally credited with the discovery of rhenium in 1925 (Habashi, 1997). The total cost for producing the first gram

of rhenium in 1928 was estimated to be $15,000. At the University of Tennes see in 1942, A.D. Melaven and J.A.

Bacon developed a process for extracting the element from

the dust that accumulated in the roasting molybdenum ore. This plant in Tennessee was the only rhenium producer in the

United States for many years and had a total output of several hundred pounds of the metal and its salts (Sutulov, 1976, p. 206).

In 1942, the price of the metal in the United States was $14

per gram; in Germany, however, the price was reportedly $4

per gram. The price of rhenium decreased from $14 per gram in 1942 to $1.99 per gram in 1951 as techniques for

extraction were refined. From 1951 through 1954, interest in

rhenium uses was stimulated by research associated with the

Korean conflict. Consequently, the price rose to as high as $2.18 per gram. From 1954 through 1969, prices stabilized

as new uses for rheniu m were developed—the additions of128 rhenium increas e the corrosion resistance of stainless steel;

the nuclear properties of rhenium offer potential as a reactorshielding material for thermal neutrons; rhenium shield, when compared with a lead

shield, results in a significant weight savings; and the inherent brittleness of tungsten and molybdenum metals is inhibited and the ductility is improved by alloying with rhenium. In 1968, the usage in alloy applications decrea s ed as Atomic Energy Commission programs

were completed. This decrease was reversed by the development of rhenium and rhenium-platinum catalysts used in the cracking of petroleum hydrocarbons (National Research Council, 1968). The use in catalysts reached a high of 75% of the demand for rhenium, resulting in a price peak in 1971 of $2.64 per gram. The price declined to $0.77 per gram in

1978 because the supply/demand was balanced. In 1980, the price increased to $3.58 per gram as a result of increased demand related to the doubling of the percentage of rhenium in the reforming catalysts used to produce unleaded gasoline (Millensifer, 1997). The price quickly deceased to $1.34 per gram in 1981. The price continued to decrease to $0.55 per

gram in 1984, then it increased to $0.89 per gram in 1987. In 1988, the price increased to about $1.50 per gram as a result

of demand for new a l loys to be used in turbine engines for

aircraft. This caused the price to increase to $1.60 per gram in 1990. In 1991, it decreased to $1.34 per gram and had

decreased to $0.90 per gram by the end of 1998, partly owing

to the de creased demand for aircraft engines following the

dissolution of the Soviet Union.

References Cited

Habashi, Fathi, 1997, Rhenium s eventy years old, in Byrskin,
B.D., ed., 1997, Rhenium and rhenium alloys—Inte r national Symposium on Rhenium and Rhenium Alloys, February 9-13,
1997, Orlando , FL, Proceedings: Warrendale, PA, The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society, p. 15-36. Millensifer, T.A., 1997, Rhenium background and markets, i n Byrskin, B.D., ed., 1997, Rhenium and rhenium alloys—I nternational Symposium on Rhenium and Rhenium Alloys, Feb

ruary 9-13, 1997, Orlando, FL, Proceedings: Warrendale, PA, The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society, p. 37-47.

National Research Council, 1968, Trends in usage of rhenium—A

report by the Materials Advisory Board: National Academy of

Sciences/National Academy of Engineering, MAB-251, Washington, D.C., December, p. 9. Sutulov, Alexander, 1976, Molybdenum and rhenium 1778-1977: University of Concepcion, Chile, 257 p.

U.S. Rhenium Metal Powder Price (Dollars per gram)

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1942 14.00 1957 1.46 1972 1.98 1987 0.89

1943 10.00 1958 1.45 1973 1.76 1988 1.47

1944 6.50 1959 1.43 1974 1.54 1989 1.55

1945 4.50 1960 1.50 1975 1.67 1990 1.60

1946 3.25 1961 1.35 1976 1.10 1991 1.34

1947 NA 1962 1.33 1977 0.99 1992 1.20

1948 NA 1963 1.28 1978 0.77 1993 1.20

1949 NA 1964 1.46 1979 2.04 1994 1.20

1950 NA 1965 1.50 1980 3.58 1995 1.15

1951 1.99 1966 1.35 1981 1.22 1996 1.10

1952 2.18 1967 1.33 1982 0.84 1997 1.00

1953 2.11 1968 1.28 1983 0.55 1998 0.90

1954 1.43 1969 1.46 1984 0.55

1955 1.50 1970 2.20 1985 0.66

1956 1.49 1971 2.64 1986 0.77

NA Not available.

Note: 1942-82, published by the U.S. Bureau of Mines, but origin is unknown. 1983-94, Rhenium Commodity Specialist, U.S. Bureau of Mines (I.E. Torres and J.W. Blossom). 1995-98, Rhenium Commodity Specialist, U.S. Geological Survey (J.W. Blossom).129 

### Annual Average Primary Rubidium Price

(Dollars per gram)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars

Current dollars 

# Rb

Rubidium

by Robert G. Reese, Jr.

Rubidium was discovered in 1861 but had ext r emely

limited industrial use until the 1920’s (Perel’man, 1965, p. 1). Small quantities of rubidium-containing minerals were mined in the United States prior to the mid-1960’s, but rubidium is

no longer mined domestically. Historically, the most important use for rubidium has been in research and development, primarily in chemical and electronic applications. Owing to the small size of the industry, quoted rubidium prices are those of individual companies. The price varies directly with the purity of the material and inversely with the quantity purchased. Rubidium metal has been marketed in

p urities ranging from 99.5% to 99.8%. The annual prices presented in the graph and table may not be comparable from

y ear to year owing to differences in purities, quantity of

material purchased, and/or the source of the price. For example, prior to 1963, most of the prices published in the

U.S. Bureau of Mines M i nerals Yearbooks were for purchases of less than 1 pound of rubidium metal. Some pre1963 prices, along with the prices published for 1963 through 1988, were for the purchase of at least 1 pound of rubidium metal. The price when buying a 1 pound of metal is significantly lower than the other prices, owing to discounts for the large quantity purchased. For this report, prices were subsequently converted to a per-gram equivalent. The prices

for 1992 through 1998 represent the price charged for a 1- gram ampoule of 99.8%-pure rubidium metal.

Reference Cited

Perel’man, F.M., 1965, Rubidium and caesium: New York, The Macmillan Co., 144 p.130 Annual Average Primary Rubidium Price

(Dollars per gram)

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1959 2.26 1969 0.66 1979 0.61 1989 0.74

1960 0.86 1970 0.66 1980 0.74 1990 0.74

1961 1.00 1971 0.66 1981 0.74 1991 0.74

1962 1.00 1972 0.66 1982 0.74 1992 40.00

1963 0.90 1973 0.66 1983 0.74 1993 40.00

1964 0.90 1974 0.66 1984 0.74 1994 40.00

1965 0.63 1975 0.66 1985 0.74 1995 42.40

1966 NA 1976 NA 1986 0.74 1996 42.40

1967 0.63 1977 0.61 1987 0.74 1997 45.40

1968 0.63 1978 NA 1988 0.74 1998 79.70

NA Not available

Note: The data in the table above were compiled from information in various U.S. Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbooks, U.S. Bureau

of Mines Mineral Commodity Summaries, and U.S. Geological Survey Mineral Commodity Summaries. It is believed that the data in the previously mentioned publication represents, and/or were obtained from the following sources:
1959, Average of the price for purities ranging from 99.0% to 99.8% attributed to American Potash & Chemical Corp. & Penn Rare

Metals Co. 1960, 99+% Rubidium metal, 10-pound lots. 1961-62, MSA Research Corp. 99.0% rubidium metal, 50-gram lots. 1963-64, Average of the range of prices for 99+% rubidium metal, in American Metal Market. 1965, Average of the range of prices for 99.5% rubidium, 1- to 9-pound lots attributed to the Penn Rare Metals Division of Kawecki

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

Chemical Co. 1969-75, U.S. Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook citation for 99.5+% rubidium metal. 1977, Average of the range of prices for 99.5% rubidium metal attributed to unidentified industry sources. 1979, Average of the range of prices for 99.5% rubidium metal attributed to unidentified industry sources. 1980-85, KBI Division, Cabot Corp., average of the yearend price for technical- and high-purity-grade rubidium metal. 1986-88, KBI Division, Cabot Corp., average of the yearend price for technical- and high-purity-grade rubidium metal in lots under 50 pounds. 1989-91, KBI Division, Cabot Corp. 1992-98, Alfa Aesar and other chemical catalogs. Prices for purchases of 99.8% rubidium metal in 1-gram ampoules.131 

## Annual Average Commercial-Grade Selenium Price

(Dollars per pound)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars

Current dollars 

# Se

Selenium

by Robert D. Brown, Jr.

Significant events affecting selenium prices since 1958

1963-67 Commercial stocks rise to 1.3 million pounds before declining, U.S. Government stocks reach 400,000 pounds in

1963, imports increasing

1968-72 Vietnam War, production and demand surge to record highs of 1.2 million and 1.8 million pounds, respectively, in

1969, stocks decline rapidly, civilian demand growth from single-use bottles and xerography

1974-76 Government stocks liquidated by 1974, low commercial inventories, reduced domestic production from recession

and copper industry strike, increased import dependence, continued growth in xerography

1977-80 Stock buildup and reduced demand following 1977 recession, production level is established at about one-half of

1969 peak

1981-83 Demand surges, stocks remain high, xerography and glass manufacturing dominate demand

1984-89 World stocks decline as demand outstrips production, speculation encourages price fluctuations, domestic demand

averages 1.3 million pounds

1990-91 World production rises, demand slackens owing to recession, stock decline is reversed

1995-98 Increasing use in lead-free brasses

1996-98 Large-scale research on supplementation for cancer prevention in humans132

The discovery of selenium is credited to J.J. Berzelius, who

isolated it in 1817 from the red residue found in sulfuric acid prepared at the pyrite mining operation at Fahlun, Sweden (Carapella, 1984, p. 842). For almost a century, selenium was merely a scientific curiosity, until its use as a pigment in

the manufacture of red gla ss, ceramics, and glazes was established by 1910 (Hess, 1911). Prices for selenium prior

to that time are not generally available. Commercial quantities

of selenium were and still are recovered as a byproduct of the electrolytic refining of copper where it accumulates in anode residues (Hoffman, 1984, p. 495-516). During World War I , selenium production and demand

grew rapidly owing to the increased demand for red glass and

the development of selenium as a replacement for manganese dioxide as a decolorizer in clear glass. Domestic production rose rapidly from about 5 metric tons in 1910 to about 50

tons in 1918. Although the production of selenium fluctuated markedly from year to year, it continued to increase, reaching

a pea k of 565 tons in 1969, during the Vietnam War. Disruptions to copper production, changing technology, and

variable demand contribute d to year-to-year fluctuations in production. From 1970 through 1980, domestic production

fell markedly, with imports accounting for an increasing share of domestic demand. Domestic production of selenium was about 140 tons in 1980 and increased to roughly 250 tons in 1985, 275 tons in 1990, 375 tons in 1995, and 380 tons in

1996.

As calculated from domestic shipments plus n e t imports, apparent consumption also fluctuated markedly from year to

year owing to econ omic cycles, military engagements,

technical developments, and consumer stockpiling. Growth in consumption was driven by the development of new uses, including applications in rubber compounding, steel alloying,

and selenium rectifiers. Consumption generally increased through 1969 when it peaked at almost 900 tons owing mainly

to defense requirements. By 1970, selenium in rectifiers had largely been replaced by silicon, but its u se as a photoconductor in plain paper copiers had become its leading application. By 1974, U.S. Government stocks, which had reached a peak of 400,000 pounds in 1963, were liquidated. Apparent consumption fell to less than 350 tons in 1980 but

rose to a fairly stable range just above or below 500 tons from 1990 through 1996. During the 1980’s, the photoconductor application declined (although it was still a large end use) as more and more copiers using organic photoconductors were produced. In the late 1980’s, demand outstripped supply,

thus causing an inc rease in price and a decrease in stocks. Since 1990, worldwide production has exceeded or matched

demand. When demand has increased, so has production, but

when demand has decreased, production has remained about

the same. This fairly constant oversupply situation has kept prices low (Brown, 1998, p. 13-17). In 1996, continuing

research showed a positi v e correlation between selenium supplementation and cancer prevention in huma ns (Clark, 1996, p. 1957-1963). Although this could be very important

from a public health viewpoint, direct applic ation of this finding would not add significantly to demand owing to the small doses required. In the late 1990’s, the use of selenium (usually with bismuth) as an additive to plumbing brasses to

meet no-lead standards became important (King and Li, 1997); this application could add significantly to demand. In 1996, total domestic consumption was about 500 tons.
Demand data from 1997 and 1998 a re withheld to prevent publication of proprietary information.

References Cited

Brown, R.D., Jr., 1998, Selenium and tellurium—Supply demand

re lationship: International Symposium on the Uses of

Selenium and Tellurium, 6 th

, Scottsdale, AZ, May 10-12, 1998, Proceedings, 314 p. Carapella, S.C., Jr., 1984, Selenium (4 t h ed.): New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold Encyclopedia of Chemistry, 1082 p. Clark, L.C., and others, 1996, Effect of selenium supplementation for cancer prevention: Journal of the American Medical Association, v. 276, no. 24, December 25, 129 p.
Hess, F.L., 1911, Selenium, in Mineral resources of the United States 1910: U.S. Geological Survey, pt. I, Metals, p. 731. Hoffman, J.E., 1984, Recovery of selenium from electrolytic

copper refinery

slimes, in Precious metals—Mining, extraction, and processing: Warrendale, PA, Mining, Minerals, and Materials Society, 621 p. King, M.G., and Li, Taie, 1997, Method for making machinable lead-free copper alloys with additive: U.S. Patent 5,614,038, assigned to ASARCO Incorporated, 4 p.133 Annual Average Commercial-Grade Selenium Price 1

(Dollars per pound 2 )

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1911 3.00 1933 1.90 1955 7.50 1977 17.12

1912 2.50 1934 1.90 1956 11.25 1978 15.00

1913 1.68 1935 2.00 1957 9.75 1979 13.65

1914 1.50 1936 1.88 1958 7.25 1980 10.95

1915 NA 1937 1.88 1959 7.00 1981 4.38

1916 1.35 1938 1.80 1960 6.75 1982 3.53

1917 2.15 1939 1.80 1961 6.38 1983 3.87

1918 3.00 1940 1.75 1962 6.00 1984 9.02

1919 2.38 1941 1.75 1963 5.13 1985 7.44

1920 2.00 1942 1.75 1964 4.50 1986 5.70

1921 2.13 1943 1.75 1965 4.50 1987 6.51

1922 1.96 1944 1.75 1966 4.50 1988 9.84

1923 1.86 1945 1.75 1967 4.50 1989 7.61

1924 1.86 1946 1.75 1968 4.50 1990 5.82

1925 1.70 1947 1.88 1969 7.00 1991 5.41

1926 1.95 1948 2.00 1970 9.00 1992 5.13

1927 1.95 1949 2.00 1971 9.00 1993 4.90

1928 2.13 1950 2.75 1972 9.00 1994 4.90

1929 1.65 1951 3.25 1973 9.25 1995 4.89

1930 1.90 1952 3.25 1974 16.53 1996 4.00

1931 1.90 1953 3.63 1975 18.00 1997 2.94

1932 1.90 1954 4.63 1976 18.00 1998 2.50

NA Not available

1 99.5%-pure selenium powder.

2 To convert to dollars per kilogram, multiply by 2.20462.

Note: 1911-20, Domestic price, in U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Resources of the United States. 1921-36, Domestic price, in Engineering & Mining Journal. 1937-66, Domestic price, in E&MJ Metal and Mineral Markets. 1967-93, New York dealer price, in Metals Week [through June 14, 1993]. 1993-98, New York dealer price, in Platt’s Metals Week.(This page intentionally left blank.)135 

### Annual Average 50% Ferrosilicon Price (Cents per pound contained silicon)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARCENTS 1992 dollars Current dollars



### Annual Average Silicon Metal Price

(Cents per pound)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARCENTS 1992 dollars
Current dollars 

# Si

Silicon

by Thomas S. Jones136 Significant events affecting silicon prices since 1958

1974 Lifting of price controls

1980’s Imports of silicon materials capture a growing share of U.S. market

1988 Strength in steel production

1991 Antidumping duties assessed on U.S. silicon metal imports

1993-94 Antidumping duties assessed on U.S. ferrosilicon imports

1996 Period of strong demand

Silicon i s a light chemical element with metallic and

nonmetallic characteristics. It is second in importance to

manganese in overall steelmaking. In the form of ferrosilicon,

silicon is used for deoxidizing and as a strengthening alloy in

the production o f iron and steel. Silicon metal is used primarily in the aluminum and chemical industries. Principal elements in the cost of silicon and ferrosilicon production are the deli vered costs of the ore (quartz or quartzite) and the costs of energy, reductant coke or low ash coal, iron in the form of steel scrap (if required), and labor.

These costs, and particularly that of energy, have increased rapidly since 1970. In addition, new capital costs for pollution

control equipment have been incurred. Bulk ferroalloys produced in submerged-arc furnaces are extremely power intensive, esp ecially silicon metal and silicon-containing alloys,

which can r equire up to 14,000 kilowatt-hours of electric

energy per metric ton of silicon contained in the final product (Dosaj, 1997). Energy is the largest cost component in the production of silicon metal and silicon-containing alloys and

can account

for one-fifth or more of total costs (de Linde, 1995). Specifications for silicon metal used by the primary

aluminum and chemical industries generally are mo r e stringent than those for metal used by the secondary aluminum industry. Price trends for the small quantities of high-purity, high-value silicon produc ed for electronic uses are not

addressed in t his chapter. Data for U.S. exports in 1997

indicate that the cost of silicon for manufacture into the chips upon which modern computer technology is based averages

as much as 30 times that for metallurgical and chemical uses. Based on usage and nom inal silicon content, the main

varieties o f silicon ferroalloys have been 50% ferrosilicon,

75% ferrosilicon, and specialty ferrosilicons. The price trends

discussed here are for 50% ferrosilicon, simply referred to as
“ferrosilicon” in the following text. Trends for 75% ferrosilicon have been much the same since at least 1980. Of the

sp e cialty ferrosilicons, the most important is perhaps magnesium ferrosilicon. For that ferroalloy, Metals Week has

not listed a price since 1978, but American Metal Market has published prices with an effective date as recent as July 21,

1995.

The customary basis for quoting prices for silicon materials

is in terms of silicon content, so that for the United States the price unit has been cents per pound of contained silicon. On

this basis, the silicon units in silicon metal, because of their higher energy content, are more costly than those in ferrosilicon, for which no allowance is made for iron content.

From 1959 through 1998, the ratio for the price of silicon

contained in metal

to the price of silicon contained in

ferrosilicon fluctuated considerably, averagin g about 1.45

overall.

E&MJ Metal and M inerals Markets and its successors (Metals Week in 1967 and Platt’s Metals Week in 1993) are

believed to have been the source of mo st, if not all, of the price data tabulated. In these publications, updating of U.S. producer prices ended about 1991, and their listing was formally suspended in 1996. The price basis throughout has

be en bulk lots, free on board (f.o.b.) shipping point for producers and f.o.b. warehouse, duty-paid, for dealer quotes

for imports. In recent years, the prices in Platt's Metals Week have been exclusive quotations based on canvassing. The price tabulated for silicon metal generally has been for metal with a typical iron content of 1%. Demand for metallurgical-grade silicon alloys and metal is

little determined in the short term by their prices but rather by the level of activity in the steel, ferrous foundry, aluminum,

and chemical industries. As a result, prices tend to vary widely with changes in demand and supply. The price versus

time curves for silicon and ferrosilicon are quite similar for the period from 1959 through 1998. For both materials, prices

rose steeply in 1974 and peaked markedly in 1988 and 1996.

Since 1974, prices have grown at a compound annual rate of

about 2.2%. This rate is much lower than the general rate of

inflation as given by the Consumer Price Index, which

advanced during the 1970’s at about 8.6% per year and since the early 1980’s at about 3.6% per year.

F rom 1959 through 1969, the price of silicon alloys and metallurgical-grade metal remained reasonably stable. During this period, the domestic producer price fluctuated between

12 and 14.5 cents per pound for ferr o silicon and between 18.1 and 21.9 cents per pound for metal.

Prices began to rise i

n the early 1970’s owing to higher

costs of scrap iron, metallurgical-grade coal, and electric

power and the cost of newly installed pollution control devices

to comply with governmental standards, which became

effective in 1975 (Murphy and Brown, 1985). Prices for137 silicon materials increased sharply after Government controls imposed on ferroalloy prices were lifted in early 1974. Prices

increased to 32.5 cents per pound for domestically produced

ferrosilicon and to 47 cents per pound for metallurgical-grade metal; these prices were more than double those of 19 7 0.

Prices rose steadily from 1977 through 1981 in response to increased demand, rising inflation, and higher energy costs.

Prices peaked in 1988 owing to stronger demands from the aluminum, iron and steel, and silicon-base chemical i n dustries,

and by the end of th e year, domestic producers were operating at close to capacity (Gambogi, 1990). Increased

demand and rising prices persuaded some producers throughout the world to restart existing facilities and to make plans for future expansion. By yearend 1990, however, the

then-record high p rices of 1988 had declined significantly.

The sudden decline in prices was caused mainly by oversupply of material resulting from the reactivation of idle capacity, development of new capacity in South America, and

es c alation of low-cost imports from China, South America,

and th e then-U.S.S.R. Consequently, in response to a continuing soft world market, several domestic produc ers scheduled production cutbacks.

Subse quently a number of domestic producers of silicon materials were alleged to have engaged in price fixing during 1989 through 1991. As a result of the investigation of these charges by the U.S. Department of J ustice, two firms pled guilty and received fines in 1995-96 for price fixing of

ferrosilicon (Jones, 1998). In 1997, a third firm was found guilty of price fixing of ferrosilicon (Megregian, Babbitz, and Kress, 1998).

In the 1990’s, prices for silicon materials were influenced by the imposition of

protective tariffs. Starting in 1980, imports of silicon metal and silicon ferroalloys captured an increasingly large share of the U.S. market, with a resultant

decline in use of U.S. productive capacity. By the late 1980’s,

domestic producers had petitione d the U.S. Department of

Commerce and the U.S. International Trade Commission for

relief against alleged dumping of silicon metal imports from Argentina, Brazil, and China. In mid-1991, the two agencies

concluded thei

r investigations and made affirmative

determinations that resulted in imposition of antidumping

duties. For ferrosilicon, a similar sequence of events resulted

in the imposition

of antidumping duties in 1993-94 for a

number of foreign sources. In subsequent years, at least

som e of these duties have been the subject of annual

administrative reviews and court challenges that led, in certain cases, to revisions of the duties.

The 1996 p r ice peaks for ferrosilicon and silicon metal,

which are the highest on record, appeared to have been

related to supply-demand conditions. These peaks, as well as those in 1988, roughly coincided with upturns in world steel production indicating a period of stro ng demand. Prices subsequently decreased in 1998, at least partly as a result of the deteriorating economic conditions in Asia and Russia.

References Cited

Dosaj, Vishu, 1997, Silicon and silicon alloys—Chemical and metallurgical, in Kroschwitz, J.I., and Howe-Grant, Mary, eds.,

Kirk-Othmer encyclopedia of chemical technology (4 th ed.): New York, John Wiley & Sons, v. 21, p. 1104-1122.
Jones, T.S., 1998, Si licon, i n Minerals Yearbook 1996: U.S. Geological Survey, v. I, p. 783-791. Gambogi, Joseph, 1990, Silicon, in U.S. Bureau of Mines 1988 Minerals Yearbook, v. I, p. 845-853.

de Linde, J.P., 1995, Ferroalloy markets, in Tuset, J.K., Tveit, H.,

and Page, I.G., eds., INFACON 7—Proceedings of the Seventh

International Ferroalloys Congress, Trondheim, Norway, June 11-14, 1995: Trondheim, Norwegian Ferroalloy Research Organization, p. 39-62. Megregian, S.S., Babbitz, Todd, and Kress, Carl, 1998, Antitrust

and trade developments in the metals and mining industries: Ryan’s Notes 1998 Ferroalloy Conference, Boca Raton, FL, October 25-27, 1998, handout of talk presented, unpaginated. Murphy, G.F., and Brown, R.E., 1985, Silicon, in Mineral facts

and problems: U.S. Bureau of Mines Bulletin 675, p. 713-728.138 Annual Average 50% Ferrosilicon Price (Cents per pound contained silicon 1 )

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1959 14.5 1969 13.5 1979 38.8 1989 49.6

1960 14.5 1970 13.6 1980 39.8 1990 42.4

1961 14.5 1971 15.3 1981 41.5 1991 38.3

1962 14.5 1972 15.0 1982 41.4 1992 36.9

1963 14.5 1973 18.5 1983 37.1 1993 40.8

1964 14.5 1974 33.0 1984 41.2 1994 43.9

1965 12.0 1975 32.5 1985 37.5 1995 57.9

1966 12.6 1976 33.5 1986 35.6 1996 64.0

1967 12.6 1977 33.5 1987 38.5 1997 54.8

1968 13.0 1978 34.5 1988 52.1 1998 52.1

Annual Average Silicon Metal Price (Cents per pound 1 )

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1959 21.4 1969 20.1 1979 53.7 1989 58.8

1960 21.4 1970 21.5 1980 59.2 1990 54.8

1961 21.4 1971 22.9 1981 61.0 1991 61.5

1962 21.4 1972 25.4 1982 57.4 1992 60.0

1963 19.5 1973 28.4 1983 53.8 1993 66.4

1964 18.2 1974 47.0 1984 60.4 1994 64.1

1965 18.5 1975 43.0 1985 58.8 1995 69.5

1966 18.0 1976 42.5 1986 56.3 1996 89.7

1967 18.1 1977 44.0 1987 58.1 1997 81.4

1968 18.3 1978 54.5 1988 68.7 1998 70.5

1 To convert to cents per kilogram, multiply by 2.20462.

Note: 1959-66, U.S. producer price, in E&MJ Metal and Mineral Markets. 1967-79, U.S. producer price, in Metals Week. 1980-93, U.S. dealer import price, in Metals Week. 1993-98, U.S. dealer import price, in Platt’s Metals Week.139 

## Annual Average Silver Price (Dollars per troy ounce)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars

Current dollars 

# Ag

Silver

by Henry E. Hilliard

Significant events affecting silver prices since 1958

1950-68 Huge U.S. Government silver holdings largely depleted

1963 Silver Purchase Act and various other legislation repealed; U.S. Treasury authorized to print Federal Reserve

Notes, which were not redeemable for silver, for circulating currency

1965 Silver eliminated from all U.S. coins except the half dollar, which has its silver content reduced from 90% to 40%

1967 Announcement by U.S. Government that all silver coins would be withdrawn from circulation

1968 Redemption of silver certificates for silver could only be made until June 24; thereafter, silver certificates would be

exchanged for Federal Reserve Notes

1979-80 Attempt to corner the silver market

1985 U.S. Mint authorized to begin minting a silver bullion coin

Silver has been used for thousands of years as ornaments
and utensils, for trade, and as the basis for many monetary systems. Of all the metals, pure silver has the whitest color,

the highest optical reflectivity, and t he highest thermal and electrical conductivity. Also, silver halides are photosensitive. Owing to the above properties, s ilver has many industrial applications, such as in mirrors, electrical and elect ronic products, and photography, which is the largest single end use140 of silver. Silver’s catalytic properties make it ideal for use as a catalyst in oxidation reactions; for example, the production of formaldehyde from methanol and air, catalyzed by silver

screens or crystallites co ntaining a minimum 99.95 weightpercent silver (Butts and Coxe, 1967, p. 1-15).

The most common occurrences of silver are in association

with base metals and other precious metals. About 75% to

80% of the silver mined today is produced as a byproduct of mining operations directed mainly at the production of copper, gold, lead, or zinc. A large part of silver production is, therefore, relatively insensitive to the price of silver.

There are two types of markets for silver—physical

m arkets and futures exchanges. It is possible for these

mark ets to overlap if the buyers of futures contracts take delivery of silver metal when the contracts mature. A notable example of this was in the early 1980’s when two buyers and

their associates took delivery of millions of ounces of silver

when their futures contract ma tured. Physical markets are operated by bullion dealers, banks, and commodity dealers.

Silver is bought from mines and refineries and sol d to

consumers and brokers to supply industrial a nd investment demand. The London Bullion Market, which had its origins

in the 17 th century , was the leading physical market until

about 1960 when it was overtaken in importance by the New

York Market. The London Market fixes a daily price, at

which all orders to buy or sell silver can be matched. The

New York Market price for silver is the Handy & Harman quote for unfabricated silver, which the company announces daily at noon. That is the lowest price at which offers can be

obtained by Handy & Harman for silver in commercial bar

form. The Handy & Harman price and the London fixing are for 99.9 %-pure silver.

Prior to World War II, the major uses for silver, other than

in coinage, were for jewelry and sterlingware. During the

war, however, technologica l advances were made in electronics and photography. After the war, this technology was used to develop new consumer products. As the demand for

consumer goods increased, so did the demand for silver, and,

as a result, the market price increased. The higher market price, however, did not result in increased mine production.

The S ilver Act of 1946 authorized the U.S. Treasury to purchase domestically mined silver at $0.905 and to sell its silver holdings at $0.91 per ounce. Through the first half of

the 1950’s, the market price rema ined below $0.91, so domestic mine operators sold their silver to the Treasury. In

the second half of

the 1950’s, the continued increase in

ind ustrial demand for silver and static mine production

resulted in the market price increasing to $0.91 and Treasury

silver sales being the larges t source of silver for industrial consumers (National Academy of Sciences, 1968).

In the late 1950’s and early 1960’s, a second component

was added to the demand side of the supply-demand equation—th e investor-speculator. The silver certificates

authorized by the Silver Purchase Act of 1934 were redeemable for silver held by the Treasury. At a market price above $1.29, a profit could be made by redeeming the silver certificates, receiving 0.77 ounce of silver from the Treasury,

and then selling the silver. In addition, at a market price

above $1.38, a profit could be made by melting U.S.

circula ting coinage for its silver content. Realizing that it

could not continue to supply industrial consumers with silver,

mint coinage, and maintain a stock of silver for redemption of silver certificates, the Government began a program to

demonetize silver. Public Law 88-36, which repealed the

Silver Purchase Act of 1934 and authoriz ed the printing of

Federal Reserve Notes not redeemable in silver, was passed

in mid-1963. The Coinage Act of 1965 eliminated the use of

silver in dimes and quarters and reduced the silver content of

half dollars. In 1967, silver coins were withdrawn from circulation, and holders of silver certificates were given 1

year, until June 24, 1968, to redeem the certificates for silver (Silver Institute, 1990, p. 6-7).

With the ending of the relation between silver and the U.S.
monetary system in 1968, investor-speculator activities and

industrial demand became the main determinants of

movement in the silver market price. From 1968 through 1971, the price declined, owing, in pa rt, to an economic

recession in the United Sta tes and an attempt by the

Government to stabilize the price of silver. From 1972 through 1975, the average price increased, ow ing to such

factors as the devaluation of the U.S. dollar and an embargo

of oil expo rts by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting

Countries. Prices also increased from 1976 through 1980. Analysts attributed this 5-year period of higher average prices

to such factors as a high domestic inflation rate comb i ned

wit h slow growth in U.S. economic activity, another “oil crisis,” a U.S. economic recession that began in 1979, and an attempt by a group of investors to “corner” the silver market (Roskill Information S ervices Ltd., 1984, p. 190-203). By early 1981, the silver market was beginning to adjust to the upward pressure placed on prices in 1979 thr ough 1980. Owing to worldwide recessio n and reaction to higher silver prices, industrial demand for silver w as in decline, and

investment demand for silver fell sharply. Supply also fell as the surge of secondary recovery from old scrap and coin

remelt subsided. Silver prices reached a cyclical low of $4.88

per ounce in June 1982, 10% of the $48 peak 30 months

earlier. Because of panic in the financial markets and fear of

inflatio n
, investment demand for silver increased sharply in

late 1982 and the first quarter of 1983. This influx of investor buying help e d push silver prices from the low of $4.88 in

June 1982 to a peak of $14.74 in February 1983. In March,

this rapid rise in price (the price nearly tripled in 9 months)

was reversed as investors took profits, indus trial users developed new methods that reduced their per-unit use of

silver and substituted lower priced materials for silver. Prices

recovered during the summer, but the trend was downward

from the fourth quarter of 1983 through 1986. Lower prices discouraged the secondary recovery of silver and forced lessefficient mines to close. On the demand side, lower prices141 relieved the pr essure to use less silver or to use lower cost

substitutes for silver in products. After starting 1987 at $5.44

per ounce, prices reached a low of $5.36 on January 7.

Prices increased though the remainder of the year, reaching a high of $10.20 on April 27 but closing out the year at $7.20. The annual average price for 1987 was $7.01 per ounce, the first increase in 4 years. Owing to various market and economic conditions, the

annual average price of silver declined from $7.01 per ounce in 1987 to a low of $3.94 in 1992 before increasing slightly to $4.30 in 1993. Prices began to increase in the first quarter of 1994, reaching $5.75 per ounce on March 28, 1994. The upward momentum was caused by political unrest in Mexico, the world’s largest producer, and reports of large shipments

to India. In April, prices slipped rapidly to around $5.00 per

ounce as Indian demand slowe d and large supplies from

Russia and other East Eur o pean countries appeared in the

market. In September, prices increased again to $5.71 per

ounce before collapsing to $4.90 on November 30. Prices in

1995 were not quite as volatile as in 1994, but the downward

trend that began in April 1994 continued (Silver Institute, 1995, p. 8-15). For centuries, the price of silver has been closely coupled

with the price of gold, but the demonetization of both metals

in much of the world has weakened th e link. Throughout

most of 1996, the price of silver was adversely affected by

the poor performance of gold. Toward the end of 1996, however, the price of silver began to deviate from the price of gold, owing to investor s’ and speculators’ adoption of distinctly different positions in the two markets. This decoupling process continued into 1997, and although the gold

market continued to influence the price of silver, the trend in the metals’ prices indicated that a total decoupling may have been in the making. In the first 2 months of 1997, the price of gold fell by 2%. Initially, the pri

ce of silver followed gold down to a 2-year low of $4.65 per ounce in the first week of January. During the next 6 weeks, the price began to rebound, rising by 14%

to reach $5.32 on March 3. The higher price proved to be unsustainable as technical selling entered the market. Silver prices dropped to $4.64 on April 29. Early in July, gold fell

to $315, a 12-year low. Subsequently, silver fell to $4.21 on July 17, its low for the year. On October 27, the Dow Jones

Industrial average dropped more than 500 points, Asian equity markets were in turmoil, and gold fell to a 12-year low of $308 per ounce. Surprisingly, silver held its ground, closing above $4.60. After the U.S. Thanksgiving holiday, gold fell below $300 while silver climbed to more than $5.30. By the 1st of December, the price of silver had increased by $0.53,

to $5.83, as above-ground stocks of silv er declined to the

lowest level in many years. The price of silver reached its high for 1997 on December 24 at $6.24 and closed out the year at $5.95 per ounce; the price ratio of silver to gold was

48:1.

Silver prices averaged $4.94 per ounce in the fourth quarter of 1998, down from $6.25 in the first quarter. In February, prices rose to a 9-year high after it became known that a U.S.

investment firm had purchased 3,978 metric tons of the

metal. The investment firm made its first purchase in July 1997 when the price was below $4.50 per ounce. The price rose to a high of $7.13 in the first week of February before falling back to $6.15 by the end of the mon th. Prices fell even further in May, June, and July to a low of about $4.70 at the end of August. Prices traded within the narrow range $5.203 to $4.963 for the remainder of the year and closed out the year at $5.05 per ounce.

References Cited

Butts, A., and Coxe, C.D., 1967, Silver—Economics, metallurgy, and use: Princeton, NJ, D.Van Nostrand, 488 p. National Academy of Sciences, 1968, Trends in usage of silver: National Academy of Sciences Publication MAB-24, 15 p.

Roskill Information Services Ltd., 1984, The economics of silver (3d ed.): London, Roskill Information Services Ltd., 203 p.

Silver I n stitute, 1990, World silver survey, 1950-1990: Washington, DC, Silver Institute, 81 p. ———1995, World silver survey, 1995: Washington, DC, Silver Institute, 64 p.142 Annual Average Silver Price (Dollars per troy ounce 1 )

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1900 0.62 1925 0.69 1950 0.74 1975 4.42

1901 0.60 1926 0.62 1951 0.89 1976 4.35

1902 0.53 1927 0.57 1952 0.85 1977 4.62

1903 0.54 1928 0.58 1953 0.85 1978 5.40

1904 0.58 1929 0.53 1954 0.85 1979 11.09

1905 0.61 1930 0.38 1955 0.89 1980 20.63

1906 0.67 1931 0.29 1956 0.91 1981 10.52

1907 0.66 1932 0.28 1957 0.91 1982 7.95

1908 0.53 1933 0.35 1958 0.89 1983 11.44

1909 0.52 1934 0.48 1959 0.91 1984 8.14

1910 0.54 1935 0.64 1960 0.91 1985 6.14

1911 0.54 1936 0.45 1961 0.92 1986 5.47

1912 0.62 1937 0.45 1962 1.09 1987 7.01

1913 0.61 1938 0.43 1963 1.28 1988 6.53

1914 0.56 1939 0.39 1964 1.29 1989 5.50

1915 0.51 1940 0.35 1965 1.29 1990 4.82

1916 0.67 1941 0.35 1966 1.29 1991 4.04

1917 0.84 1942 0.38 1967 1.55 1992 3.94

1918 0.98 1943 0.45 1968 2.14 1993 4.30

1919 1.12 1944 0.45 1969 1.79 1994 5.29

1920 1.02 1945 0.52 1970 1.77 1995 5.15

1921 0.63 1946 0.80 1971 1.55 1996 5.19

1922 0.68 1947 0.72 1972 1.68 1997 4.89

1923 0.65 1948 0.74 1973 2.56 1998 5.10

1924 0.67 1949 0.72 1974 4.71

1 To convert to dollars per kilogram, multiply by 32.1507.

Note: 1900-74, New York price of 99.9%-pure silver, in Silver, U.S. Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook 1974. 1974-93, New York price of 99.9%-pure silver, in Metals Week (through June 14, 1993). 1993-98, New York price of 99.9%-pure silver, in Platt’s Metals Week.143 

### Yearend Average Tantalum Concentrate Price (Dollars per pound contained tantalum pentoxide)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars

Current dollars 

# Ta

Tantalum

by Larry D. Cunningham

Significant events affecting tantalum prices since 1958

1979-80 Tantalum price accelerates to record levels

1982 Industry’s accumulation of large tantalum material inventories

1988 Drawdown of tantalum material inventories by processors

1990 Purchase of tantalum materials for the National Defense Stockpile (NDS)

1991 Long-term tantalum supply contracts between major producer and processors

1998 Sales of tantalum minerals from the NDS

Tantalum is a refractory metal that is easily fabricated, has

a high melting point, is highly resistant to corrosion by acids,

and is a good conductor of heat and electricity. Tantalum’s

first commercial usage was as filament material in

incandescent electric lamps in the early 1900’s (Miller, 1959). Currently, the major use for tantalum, as ta ntalum metal powder, is in the production of electronic components, mainly

tantalum capacitors. Alloyed with other metals, tantalum is

also used in making carbide tools for metalworking equipment

and in the production of superalloys for jet engine

components. Substitutes, such as aluminum, rh enium, titanium, tungsten, and zirconium, exist for tantalum but are usually made at either a performance or economic penalty.

Tan t alum mineral concentrates (tantalite) are the main primary source of tantal u m, and the price for tantalum products is affected most by events in the supply of and demand for tantalite. The price for tantalum metal products generally follows the pattern for that of tantalum concentrates. The price for tantalum metal products is also affected by the

size of the order/contract and material spe cification. The yearend 1998 price for tantalum concentrates was about $41.50 per pound of contained tantalum compared with the144 most recent industry so urce for the selling price for the following tantalum metal products (per pound of contained tantalum)—vacuum-grade metal for superalloys, $75 to $95;
sheet, $100 to $150; capacitor-grade metal powder, $135 to $240; and capacitor-grade wire, $180 to $250.

Australia is the major producer of tantalum mineral concentrates. U.S. tantalum-mining has not been significant since

1959. The United States satisfies its tantalum requirements primarily by importing tantalum concentrates from Australia

and Brazil and quantities of metal and powders from various

countries. Many of the applications for tantalum are either directly or indirectly defense related because of its use in the

aerospace, communications, energy, and transportation

industries. Thus, tantalum is classified as critical and strategic, and over the years, various tantalum materials have been purchased for the NDS. A significant activity during the 1950’s was the U.S. Government’s worldwide program for the purchase of about 6,800 metric tons (t) of combined columbium and tantalum

oxides contained in columbium-tantalum ores and

concentrates. The purchase program was terminated in 1958 (Cunningham, 1985a, b). The program, which was initiated

to encourage increased production of columbium-ta ntalum

ores and concentrates of domestic and foreign origin, largely governed the market price for tantalum ores and concentrates. It also resulted in the discovery of large low-grade domestic

and foreign deposits of tantalum minerals. The program, however, was less successful in developing domestic tantalum

m ineral production. The low grade of the discover ies precl uded their development at current or expected future prices. By 1960, tantalum demand for use in capacitors, high-temper ature alloys, corrosion-resistant chemical and

nuclear applicatio ns, machine cutting tools, and aerospace applications had increased substantially. Price peaks in 1961

and 1966 were occasioned by a sudden increase in demand

for tantalum, which outstripped the supply, thus driving prices

up. Increased demand stimulated tantalum production. After

a leveling off of demand, however, overproduction ensued, resulting in a decline in tantalum prices. The higher cost operatio ns, which had opened in response to the increased demand, closed down, and supply reverted back to customary
levels. The 1970’s was a decade of increasing tantalum demand,

ore shortages, escalating prices, and substitution. The record price levels during this per iod were attributed, in part, to a

state of panic buying i

nfluenced by anticipated increases in

tan talum demand amidst concerns of shrinking world tantalum supply. As demand for tantalum increased, some processors

foresaw the coming production shortfall and began to stockpi le inventories. The net effect was very competitive buying of tantalum feed materials to meet customer needs

with associ ated spiraling prices. The high prices brought

about substitution for tantalum and more-widespread search for and development of new tantalum supply sources. In 1979 to 1980, the price for tantalum sourc e materials exploded. Tantalum source material production could not

meet market demand, resulting in sustained inventory

reductio n. With optimistic forecasts of market growth,

processors found themselves locked into a bidding contest for available tantalum source materials. By yearend 1982, large high-cost inventories of tantalum source materials were accumulated as a hedge against perceived future shortages. During the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, processors, faced

with runaw ay source material prices, were forced to pass along a large part of the price increases to end users, which

had the effect of a decrease in the use of tantalum. Because of escalating tantalum prices, consumers began to substitute alternate products, to decrease tantalum content in products,

and to increas e recycling to substitute for virgin tantalum products. These demand-reducing activities were accelerated by the price volatility and resulted in increased stock

inventories. In the consumer electronics sector, tantalum was designed out o f some circuits and replaced primarily with aluminum-bearing electronic components.

The tantalum concentrate price was at its highest level at midyear 1980, about $118 per pound of contained tantalum

oxide. By yearend 1980, prices began declining and, by yearend 1986, were the lowes t since yearend 1976. The downturn in prices was hastened by weak tantalum demand and the overhang of the large inventories of tantalum source

materials built up during the early 1980’s. Industry sources estimated that these inventories were as high as about 5,000 t
of contained tantalum oxide in 1982 (Tantalum-Niobium International Study Center, 1986). By 1988, price increases

for tantalum source materials were again of major concern in

the tantalum industry. The yearend 1988 price for tantalite

ore, $50 per pound of contained tan talum oxide, nearly

doubled the yearend 1987 price. The price escalation was

attributed to increased demand for tantalum source materials following a drawdown of the t antalum inventories that had been built up.

The pri ce for tantalum ore continued its cyclic pattern

thr ough 1993; thereafter, the price was steady with some

moderate increases. From 1990 to 1998, the demand for

tantalum remain ed strong, with increased consumption in

most years. Demand was robust in the electronics sector for tantalum capacitors in such products as portable telephones, pagers, video cameras, personal computers, and automotive

electronics. Overall growth in this sector, however, was

slowed owing to the industry’s continued emphasis on the

miniaturization of electronic compone nts, resulting in less tantalum used per unit. In 1990, the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) purchased

about 91 t of tantalum oxide contained in tantalum minerals

for the NDS. The price of the material purchased ranged from about $36.62 to $37 per pound of contained tantalum

oxide. At about the time of material purchase, the price quote for tantalite ore ranged from about $27 to $28.50 per pound of contained tantalum oxide (Cunningham, 1993).145

In 1991, Australia’s larges t tantalum minerals producer

entered into contracts with the world’s two largest tantalum

processors for the long-term supply of tantalum ore. Under

the terms of the contracts, tantalum ore would be supplied to the processors at fixed volumes and prices for a period of 5

years (Gwalia Consolidated Ltd., 1991). Subsequently, the producer contracted with the processors for the sale of all its budgeted production of tantalite ore through 2003 (S o ns of Gwalia Ltd., 1998).

In 1998, the DLA initiated the sale of tantalu m minerals from the NDS. In September and December, the DLA sold

about 90 t of tantalum contained in tantalum minerals valued

at about $11.6 million (Defense National Stockpile Center, 1998a, b). The overall average unit price for the sales, about $48 per pound of contained tantalum oxide, was significantly higher than that being quoted for tantalum min erals, about $34 per pound of contained oxide.

References Cited

Cunningham, L.D., 1985a, Columbium, i n Mineral facts and problems: U.S. Bureau of Mines Bulletin 675, p. 185-196. ———1985b, Tantalum, in Mineral facts and pro blems: U.S. Bureau of Mines Bulletin 675, p. 811-822.
———1993, Columbium and tantalum, i n Minerals Yearbook 1990, v. I: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 339-357.

Defense National Stockpile Center, 1998a, Stoc kpile awards

tantalum minerals: Fort Belvoir, VA, Defense National Stockpile Center news release, September 24, 1 p. ———1998b, Stockpile awards tantalum minerals: Fort Belvoir,
VA, Defense Natio nal Stockpile Center news release, December 4, 1 p.

Gwalia Consolidated Ltd., 1991, Gwalia Consolidated Ltd. annual

report 1991: West Perth, Western Australia, Gwalia Consolidated Ltd., 63 p. Miller, G.L., 1959, Tantalum and niobium, in Metallurgy of the

rarer metals: London, Butterworths Scientific Publications, p. 2.

Sons of Gwalia Ltd., 199 8, Sons of Gwalia Ltd. annual report

1998: West Perth, Western Australia, Sons of Gwalia Ltd., 92 p.

Tantalum-Niobium International Stu dy Center, 1986, Perspectives on the development of the tantalum industry:

Tantalum-Niobium Inter national Study Center No. 48, October, p. 2-5.

Yearend Average Tantalum Concentrate Price (Dollars per pound contained tantalum pentoxide 1 )

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1940 2.50 1955 3.40 1970 7.13 1985 22.75

1941 2.25 1956 3.40 1971 6.50 1986 21.75

1942 1.93 1957 3.40 1972 5.63 1987 26.00

1943 2.50 1958 3.40 1973 8.00 1988 50.00

1944 2.50 1959 4.80 1974 14.00 1989 27.00

1945 2.50 1960 7.25 1975 16.00 1990 33.00

1946 NA 1961 11.50 1976 17.63 1991 28.25

1947 2.50 1962 5.50 1977 24.63 1992 29.00

1948 2.38 1963 6.50 1978 39.50 1993 26.00

1949 2.25 1964 6.50 1979 92.50 1994 26.25

1950 2.25 1965 7.75 1980 105.50 1995 27.75

1951 2.25 1966 13.00 1981 37.50 1996 27.75

1952 3.40 1967 10.25 1982 22.50 1997 33.00

1953 3.40 1968 6.50 1983 29.50 1998 34.00

1954 3.40 1969 7.13 1984 32.00

NA Not available

1 To convert to dollars per kilogram, multiply by 2.20462.

Sources: E&MJ Metal and Mineral Markets (E&MJ M&MM) (1940-41), U.S. Government purchase (1942-43), E&MJ M&MM (1944- 51) U.S. Government purchase (1952-58), E&MJ M&MM (1963-66), Metals Week (1967-92), and Platt’s Metals Week (1993-98). Prices for the period 1959-62 were published by the U.S. Bureau of Mines, but origin is unknown.(This page intentionally left blank.)147 

### Annual Average Tellurium Price (Dollars per pound)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars

Current dollars 

# Te

Tellurium

by Robert D. Brown, Jr.

Significant events affecting tellurium prices since 1958

1959-62 Price rise coincides with growth in demand for thermoelectric devices

1962-73 Price remains invariant, high inventories, demand averages about 200,000 pounds per year, free-machining steel becomes

dominant use

1973-80 Price controls during 1973 lifted in December, annual demand doubles stimulated by catalytic uses, reduced production

from fall-off in copper production and tellurium content of ores, speculation affects prices

1980-86 Demand plummets, major catalytic use ends and consumer inventories return to marketplace, depressed domestic steel

industry

1987-88 Demand for free-machining steel increases, reduced tellurium production, inventory depletion, price doubles

1989-93 Domestic and world demand weakens; production declines faster than consumption, resulting in a moderate fall-off in

stocks and sustained high prices

1993-98 Oversupply situation develops as demand decreases faster than production, high-efficiency cadmium telluride solar cells

fail to increase demand significantly

Tellurium is a relatively rare element, tied for 71 s t pl ace with platinum and palladium in rank of crustal abundance. It

is in the same chemical family as oxyge n, sulfur, selenium,

and polonium: oxygen and sulfur are nonmetals, polonium is

a metal, and selenium and tellurium are semiconductors, al though they are often referred to as metals when in

elemental form. Tellurium was first identified in 1782 in Transyl v anian gold ore (Azimov, 1994, p. 260). For more

than a century, tellurium was an experimental material having

little commercial value. Small quantities of tellurium were148 produced from anode muds generated during the electrolytic refining of copper. World tellurium production is still mainly

a byproduct of copper processing. This byproduct nature has

led to supply/demand imbalanc e s that have had significant impacts on price (Elkin, 1985, p. 1,158). By 1920, a small commercial demand had developed for

tellurium in electronic equipment, electroplating, and chemical production (Heikes, 1922). Despite a consumption of only

about 1,000 pounds per year, production of tellurium rose to

more than 11,000 pounds per year by 1929 following the rise in electrolytic copper production (Heikes, 1933).

Additional significant commercial uses for tellurium were developed d uring the 1930’s, and demand and production

rose sharply, with production exceeding demand. Major uses

included the purification of zinc-refining solutions, alloying

with lead to improve its tensile strength and corrosion resistance, and rubber compounding to improve resistance to aging and abrasion. Production and demand for tellurium fluctuated markedly

between 1940 and 1958, but generally supp ly outstripped

demand. A demand peak in 1941, attributed to World War
II, corresponded to the increased use of tellurium as a carbon

stabilizer in cast iron, and a peak in 1951-52, attributed to the

Korean Conflict, corresponded to tellurium’s expanded use in

copper alloying. Price-driven substitution of tellurium for

selenium in some applications helped boost demand from 1955 through 1958. Beginning in 1959, the byproduct nature of tellurium, with production being essentially independent of demand, and the

small and specialized uses of tellurium combined to create volatility in the market. Prices rose from $1.70 per pound in

1958 to $6.00 per pound in 1962 before stabiliz ing at the higher level (Lansche, 1963, p. 148). This period was

marked by increased shipments and speculative interest. The

rise in price also corresponded to the growth in thermoelectric applications for tellurium, as well as its use in free-machining steel, which became the dominant use (Holowat y, 1964; Rathke and Morgan, 1965).

Prices remained stable at about $6.00 per pound until the early 1970’s when growing demand for ferrous alloy applications was followed by a rapid growth in the catalytic applications of tellurium in petrochemicals processing. When

a large domestic consumer of tell urium catalyst closed its plant in late 1979, reducing demand and returning large quantities of con sumer stocks to the market, and tellurium consumption in steel fell abruptly 2 years later as steel production slumped, tellurium prices fell sharply from 1980 through 1983. Production also decreased owing to a decline

in th e tellurium content of domestic copper ores (Wills, 1982). By 1983, only one domestic producer of tellurium

remained. Domestic production decreased in 1985 when imported high-tellurium copper concentrates were no longer processed. By 1987, with increasing demand in

free-mac hining steels and low production of tellurium,

inventories became critically low, and prices rose substantially and remained fairly stable until 1993, when a steady decline began that lasted thr ough 1998. During this period, an oversupply situation developed owing to the fact that although produ ction decreased, demand decreased more (Brown, 1998, p. 13-17).

The use of high-purity tellurium in cadmium telluride solar

cells is very promising. Some of the highest efficiencies for electric power generation have been obtained by using this

materi al, but this application has not yet caused demand to increase significantly.

Metal prices can be affected by national and international regulations. Tellurium scrap and that of certain other metals

were banned from shipment from Europe to African, Pacific,

and Caribbean (APC) nations in response to Basel

Convention deliberations in 1997 which attempted to stop the “dumping” of toxic materials in APC countries (Metal Bulletin, 1997). This was in spite of many cases where APC

countries were already importing scrap for processing by their metal industries, not merely for disposal. Actually, tellurium

metal is not toxic. It was removed from the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency’s most- hazardous materials

list when its insolubility was pointed out to agency o fficials (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1996). Commercial-grade tellurium is usually marketed as minus

200-mesh powder but is also available as slabs, ingots, sticks, or lumps.

References Cited

Azi mov, Isaac, 1994, Azimov’s chronology of science and discovery: New York, Harper Collins Publishers, 800 p.
Brown, R.D., Jr., 199 8, Selenium tellurium supply-demand relationship: Inter national Symposium on the Uses of

Selenium and Tellurium, 6 th

, Scottsdale, AZ, May 10-12, 1998, Proceedings, p. 13-17. Elkin, E.M., 1985, Tellurium and tellurium compounds, in KirkOthmer concise encyclopedia of chemical technology: New York, John Wiley, 1318 p. Heikes, V.C., 1922, Selenium and tellurium, in Mineral resources of the United States 1920: U.S. Geological Survey, pt. I—Metals, p. 71-72.
———1933, Arsenic, bismuth, selenium, and telluriu m, i n Mineral resources of the United States 1930, Part I—Metals: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 25-30. Holowaty, M.O., 1964, Free-machining steels: U.S. Patents 3, 152,889 and 3,152,890, assigned to Inland Steel Co., October

13.

Lansche , A.M., 1963, Tellurium, i n Minerals and Metals Commodity Data Summaries: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 148-

149.

Metal Bul letin, 1997, EU environmental ministers move to extend export ban: Metal Bulletin, no. 8239, December 22, p.

12. Rathke, A.E., and Morgan, A.T., 1965, Free-machining steels: U.S. Patent 3, 169,857, assigned to Inland Steel Co., February

16.149 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1996, Rules and regulations: Federal Register, v. 61, no. 89, May 7, p. 20477. Wills, Frank, 1982, Inventories grow despite lower output of this copper byproduct: Engineering and Mining Journal, v. 183, no. 3, March, p. 122-123.

Annual Average Tellurium Price (Dollars per pound 1 )

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1917 3.00 1938 2.00 1959 2.33 1980 19.77

1918 NA 1939 2.00 1960 3.50 1981 14.00

1919 NA 1940 1.75 1961 4.63 1982 12.00

1920 NA 1941 1.75 1962 6.00 1983 9.25

1921 NA 1942 1.75 1963 6.00 1984 11.25

1922 2.25 1943 1.75 1964 6.00 1985 10.00

1923 2.00 1944 1.75 1965 6.00 1986 10.00

1924 NA 1945 1.75 1966 6.00 1987 20.00

1925 NA 1946 1.75 1967 6.00 1988 35.00

1926 2.02 1947 1.75 1968 6.00 1989 34.00

1927 1.91 1948 1.75 1969 6.00 1990 31.00

1928 1.91 1949 1.75 1970 6.00 1991 32.00

1929 2.07 1950 1.75 1971 6.00 1992 35.00

1930 1.70 1951 1.75 1972 6.00 1993 32.00

1931 2.00 1952 1.75 1973 6.05 1994 26.00

1932 2.00 1953 1.75 1974 8.34 1995 23.00

1933 2.00 1954 1.75 1975 9.28 1996 21.00

1934 2.00 1955 1.75 1976 10.33 1997 19.00

1935 2.00 1956 1.63 1977 17.15 1998 18.00

1936 2.00 1957 1.75 1978 20.00

1937 2.00 1958 1.70 1979 20.00

NA Not available

1 To convert to dollars per kilogram, multiply by 2.20462.

Note: 1917-22, U.S. producer price for 99%-pure tellurium, in U.S. Geological Survey Mineral Resources of the United States. 1923-29, Domestic price for 99%-pure tellurium, in Engineering and Mining Journal. 1930-36, New York price for 99%-pure tellurium, in Engineering and Mining Journal. 1937-39, New York price for 99%-pure tellurium, in E&MJ Metal and Mineral Markets. 1940-66, New York price for 99.7%-pure tellurium, in E&MJ Metal and Mineral Markets. 1967-80, New York price for 99.7%-pure tellurium, in Metals Week. 1981-94, U.S. producer price quotes for 99.7%-pure tellurium, in U.S. Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook. 1995-98, U.S. producer price quotes for 99.7%-pure tellurium, in U.S. Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook.(This page intentionally left blank.)151 Annual Average Thallium Price (Dollars per pound)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars

Current dollars 

# Tl

Thallium

by Gerald R. Smith

Significant events affecting thallium prices since 1958

1959-73 Continued use for rodenticides and insecticides

1981 Domestic production was terminated; dependence on imports

1989-98 Used in superconductivity research and new medical applications; traditional uses continued

Thallium, a soft, bluish-gray, malleable heavy metal, was discovered by Sir William Crookes in 1861 while he was making spectroscopic determinations for tellurium on residues from a sulfuric acid plant. Although the metal is reasonably

abundant in the Earth’s crust at a concentration estimated to

be about 0.7 part per million, it exists m o stly in association

with potassium minerals in clays, soils, and granites and, thus,

is generally considered to be commercially unavailable in this

form. Several thallium minerals, containing 16% to 60% thallium, occur in nature as sulfide or selenide complexes with antimony, arsenic, copper, lead, and silver but are rare and have no commercial importance as sources of this element.

The major source of commercial thallium is the trace amounts found in copper, lead, zinc, and other sulfide ores. Thallium is recovered as a byproduct from the flue dust and residues generated during the roasting and smelting steps in the processing of these ores.

Fr om 1912 to 1930, thallium compounds were used extensively for me dicinal purposes; for example, in the

treatment of ringworm, dysentery, and tuberculosis. The

narro w margin between toxicity and therapeutic benefit, however, eventually e liminated the practical use of these152 compounds. The use of thallium salts as poison for rodents

and later as insecticide led to increased use of thallium from

1 925 to 1965; significant quantities of the rodenticide wer e used by the U.S. military to control rat infestation in World War II operations (Lee, 1971; Smith and Carson, 1977).

The postwar price of thall ium metal reached $18.00 per pound after the wartime allocation and price control system imposed on thallium chemicals was lifted by the War

Production Board in 1946. In 1965, the U.S. Government issued regulations prohibiting the household use of thalliumcontaining rodent poisons and insecticides because o f their

extreme toxicity to humans, resulting in a significant decline in

thallium consumption. By 1973, all retail sales of these

chemicals had been banned in the United States. Although thallium consumption declined sharply as a result of the loss

of these markets, the decline was offset to so me extent by

increases in the uses of thallium in electroni c applications,

chemical synthesis, and such minor uses as components for solders, low-melting alloys, low-temperature thermo m eters,
and optical glasses. During this period of transition in the

end-use sectors, the published domestic producer price

remained at $7.50 per pound through 1980. In 1981,

A SARCO Incorporated, the only domestic producer o f

thallium and thallium compounds, stopped production. From

1981 through 1988, the price of thallium metal was based

upon information obtained from import dealers. By 1988, thallium prices had risen to $80.00 per pound.

In the 1990’s, consumption of th allium metal and compounds has continued in most of the established end uses; for example, semiconductor material for selenium rectifiers,

an activator in gamma radiation detection equipment, an electrical resistance component in infrared radiation detection

a nd transmission equipment, a crystalline filter for li ght

diffraction in acousto-optical measuring devices, an alloy with

mercury for low-temperature measurements, an addition to glass to increase its refractive index and density, a catalyst or

intermediate in the synthesis of organ ic compounds, and a high-density liquid for sink-float separation of minerals. In addition, research activity has been ongoing to develop hightemperature superconducting materials for such applications as magnetic resonance imaging, storage of magnetic energy, magnetic propulsion, and electric power generation and

transmission. Since 1989, numerous patents have been issued

for and reports have been published on the preparation of hig h -temperature superconductor compounds containing

thallium. In 1993, one U.S. company joined the International Supercon d uctivity Technology Research Center, a 46- member superconductivity consortium based in Japan. As a

member of this consortium, the comp any now sends two

scientists to the Center to conduct re search on its newly

discovered thallium compounds th a t superconduct at high

temperatures. The use of radioactive thallium compounds

for medical purposes in cardiovascular imaging to detect heart disease has also increased steadily since the early 1980’s.

With the advent of these newer and potential safe uses for thallium, the demand for higher purity thallium metal, either

in research or practical application, has increased. Consistent with the greater need for high-purity thallium and the lack of published or otherwise available producer or dealer quotations

for thallium metal o f any purity since 1988, the price of

thallium metal has been based upon the metal price listed in

retail s upplier catalogues. The price of 99.999%-pure thallium granules has risen steadily from $250.00 per pound in 1989 to $580.00 per pound in 1998. This price increase, an average of about 15% per year, reflects an increase in the

retail price , but this increase is higher than the rate of

inflation. To some extent, the price increase is probably the result of a greater demand for high-purity thallium.

References Cited

Lee, A.G., 1971, The chemistry of thallium: Amsterdam, Elsevier, p. 1-4. Smith, I.C., and

Carson, B.L., 1977, Thallium, v. 1 o f Trace

metals in the environment: Ann Arbor, MI, Ann Arbor Science, p. 9-16.153 Annual Average Thallium Price (Dollars per pound 1 )

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1942 10.00 1957 12.50 1972 7.50 1987 60.00

1943 10.00 1958 7.50 1973 7.50 1988 80.00

1944 11.00 1959 7.50 1974 7.50 1989 250.00

1945 12.50 1960 7.50 1975 7.50 1990 265.00

1946 14.00 1961 7.50 1976 7.50 1991 280.00

1947 18.00 1962 7.50 1977 7.50 1992 340.00

1948 15.00 1963 7.50 1978 7.50 1993 360.00

1949 14.00 1964 7.50 1979 7.50 1994 430.00

1950 12.50 1965 7.50 1980 7.50 1995 500.00

1951 12.50 1966 7.50 1981 40.00 1996 545.00

1952 12.50 1967 7.50 1982 40.00 1997 580.00

1953 12.50 1968 7.50 1983 40.00 1998 580.00

1954 12.50 1969 7.50 1984 35.00

1955 12.50 1970 7.50 1985 40.00

1956 12.50 1971 7.50 1986 40.00

1 To convert to dollars per kilogram, multiply by 2.20462.

Note: 1942-66, U.S. producer price (99.90% pure thallium), in E&MJ Metal and Mineral Markets. 1967-80, U.S. producer price (99.90% pure thallium), in Metals Week. 1981-88, Imported dealer price (99.90% pure thallium), private communications with suppliers. 1989-98, Retail supplier price (99.9990% pure thallium granules), in Aldrich and Alfa Aesar chemicals catalogues.(This page intentionally left blank.)155 

### Yearend Thorium Price (Dollars per kilogram)

0 50 100 150 200 250

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars

Current dollars 

# Th

Thorium

by James B. Hedrick

Significant events affecting thorium prices since 1958

1958 Technology improved

1977 Vietnam War increased demand

1980 Decrease in demand, prices for commercial quantities of pure thorium no longer quoted

In 1828 , Jöns Jakob Berzelius, a Swedish chemist and mineralogist, discovere d thorium in the mineral thorite (Söderbaum, 1929-31), which h a d been collected by the

Reverend Hans M.T. Esmark from a syenite on the island of

Lövö , Norway (Weeks and Leicester, 1968, p. 532). Berzelius prepared the impure metal by reducing potassium thorium fluoride with potassium in a glass tube (Weeks and Leicester, 1968, p. 534). In 1884, commercial use of

thori um began with the invention and development of the

incandescent gas light “Welsbach mantle,” or “Auerlicht,” by

Austrian chemis t Carl Auer von Welsbach. Patented the following year, the mantle used the luminescent properties of

a thorium nitrate mixture containing small amounts of cerium, beryllium, and magnesium nitrates to adjust the brightness and strength of the lamp mantle (Auer von Welsbach, 1902).

W o rld production initially came from Sweden and Norway,

but the United States (1893), Brazil (1895), and India (1911)

follow ed, as larger and more-economic deposits were developed (Parker and Baroch, 1971, p. 17). Recovered almost exclusively as a residue or waste during processing of the rare-earth-thorium phosphate mineral,

m onazite, thorium is used in small amounts in al loying156 magnesium, emitting

electrons at microwave frequencies, and welding electrodes to provide a stable and c o ntinuous arc (Hedrick, 1997).

Fluctuations in the price of thorium have been minimized by its byproduct status and a supply that far exceeds demand.

Because of the small size of the thorium industry, quoted prices are those of individual companies. The thorium price,

which is variable, depends on the material’s purity and the quantity purchased. Its use as a pure metal has been limited,

with essentially all thorium applications using either a thorium compound or a thorium-containing master alloy. Therefore,

the price history of

the individual metal is limited. The

annual prices presented in the graph and table may not be comparable from year to year, owing to differences in purities, quantity of material to be purchased, and source of the price.

The p rice of thorium metal was quoted in dollars per pound beginning in 1958. The previous year, the Atomic Energy Commissi

on (AEC) released information on an improved process for pr eparing high-purity (99.9% purity)

thorium metal (U.S. Atomic Energy Com m ission, 1957).

AEC’s new technology reportedly reduced the per pound production cost of the metal from the $15 to $20 ($33 to $44

per kilogram) range to $2 ($4.41 per kilogram). Increased

costs in the l ate 1960’s and early 1970’s were related to

increased demand for aviation alloys during the Vietnam War (Baroch, 1968). After the war, demand for thoriumcontaining alloys declined about 50%, and only minor quantities have been used since (Kirk, 1981).

Environmental issues and concerns related to thorium’s

natural radioactivity have impeded its commercial development. The impact of these environmental concerns escalated in the 1980’s, causing the principal consumers to seek

nonradioactive substitutes. By the end of the decade, most

thorium mat e rials generated as a byproduct of rare-earth

pr oduction were disposed of in tailing ponds or shipped to

U.S. Governme nt approved low-level radioactive disposal sites (Hedrick, 1990).

After 1979, thorium was primarily sold in small research quantities or alloyed as a master or finished alloy. As a result, prices for

the pure metal were no longer quoted for commercial quantities. Research in the late 1980’s led to the development of s u itable substitutes for thorium alloys, and

demand decreased. In the 1980’s and 1990’s, prices for commercial quantities were only available for a few thoriumcontaining alloys, including magnesium-thorium master alloy (80% magnesium-20% thorium), the magnesium alloy HZ-32,

and the magnesium-zinc alloy ZH-62. During the mid-1990’s,

most domestic companies ceased using thorium-bearing metal and alloys in their products, the result of concerns and costs related to its natural radioactivity (Hedrick, 1996).

References Cited

Atomic Energy C ommission, 1957, Atomic energy facts—A

summary of atomic activiti es of interest to industry: U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, September, p. 72.

Auer von Welsbach, Carl, 1902, History of the in vention of

incandescent gas-lighting: Chemical News, v. 85, May 30, p. 254-256. Baroch, C.T., 1968, Thorium, in Minerals Yearbook 1967, v. I-II: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 1113-1117. Hedrick, J.B., 1990, Thorium, in Minerals Yearbook 1989, v. I: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 1063-1966. ———1996, Thorium, i n Minerals Yearbook 1995, v. I: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 847-850.

———1997, Thorium, i n Minerals Yearbook 1996, v. I: U.S. Geological Survey, p. 899-902. Kirk, W.S., 1981, Thorium, in Mineral facts and problems: U.S. Bureau of Mines Bulletin 671, p. 937-945. Parker, J.G., and Baroch, C.T., 1971, The rare-earth eleme n ts, yttrium, and thorium: U.S. Burea u of Mines Information Circular 8476, 92 p. Söderbaum, H.G., 1929-31, Jac. Berzelius levnadsteckning [Jacob Berzelius—A portrait of his life]: Uppsala, Sweden, Almquist & Wiksells Boktryckeri A.-B., v. 2, p. 66-68. Weeks, M.E., and Leicester, H.M., 1968, Discovery of the elements (7 th ed.): Journal of Chemical Education, 896 p.157 Yearend Thorium Price (Dollars per kilogram)

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1959 43.10 1969 33.07 1979 33.07 1989 NA

1960 43.10 1970 33.07 1980 NA 1990 NA

1961 43.10 1971 33.07 1981 NA 1991 NA

1962 33.07 1972 33.07 1982 NA 1992 NA

1963 44.09 1973 33.07 1983 NA 1993 NA

1964 33.07 1974 33.07 1984 NA 1994 NA

1965 33.07 1975 33.07 1985 NA 1995 NA

1966 33.07 1976 33.07 1986 NA 1996 NA

1967 33.07 1977 33.07 1987 NA 1997 NA

1968 33.07 1978 33.07 1988 NA 1998 NA

NA Not available

Note: 1959-61, Nuclear grade from the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. 1962, 1964-79, Commercial grade for pellets, in American Metal Market. 1963, 99.9+% purity, in Thorium, U.S. Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook 1963. 1980-98, Price no longer quoted because of decreased demand.(This page intentionally left blank.)159 

### Annual Average U.S. Tin Price (Dollars per pound)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars

Current dollars 

# Sn

Tin

by James F. Carlin, Jr.

Significant events affecting tin prices since 1958

1956-85 International Tin Agreements (a continuous series of complex, global, 4-year pacts)

1973-80 Rampant inflation

1981-82 Sharp recession

Unique to tin has been its long history of commodity “agreements” dating back to 1921. These agreements were usually structured between producer countries and consumer countries on a complex global basis. The earlier agreements

tended to be somewhat informal and sporadic; they led to the

“First Inter n ational Tin Agreement” in 1956, the first of a continuously numbered series that essentially collap sed in

1985. Through this series of agreements, the International Tin Council (ITC) had a considerable effect on tin prices during that 29-year period. The ITC was able to support the price of tin during periods of low prices by buying tin for its

buffer stockpile and was able, to some degree, to restrain the price during periods of high prices by selling tin from the stockpile. This was an anti-free-market approach, designed

to assure a sufficient flow of tin to consumer countries and a decent profit for producer countries. During the 29-year run

of the tin a greements, however, it was apparent that the

buffer stockpile was not sufficiently large, especially to defend

th e artificial ceiling prices. Consequently, during most of those 29 years, tin prices rose, sometimes sharply, especially

from 1973 through 1980 when rampant inflation plagued the American and many foreign economies. During the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, the U.S. Government tin stockpile was in an aggressive selling mode,160 partly to take advantage of the historically high tin prices. The sharp recession of 1981-82 proved to be quite harsh on

the tin industry, as well as on the other metal-using industries

of the United States and most industrialized countries. Tin

c onsumption declined dramatically. The ITC was able to avoid truly steep declines through accelerated buying for its

buffer stockpile; this activity required the ITC to borrow extensively from banks and metal trading firms to augment its

resources. The ITC continued to borrow until late 1985,

when it reached its credit limit. Immediately, a major “tin

crisis” followed—tin was delisted from trading on the London Metal Exchange for about 3 years, the ITC dis solved soon afterward, and the price of tin, now in a f ree-market environment, plummeted sharply to the $4 per pound level (Roskill Information Services Ltd., 1995, p. 283-290). The price of tin has remained in that lower range since 1985, except for an excursion to the $5 level in 1989.

Reference Cited

Roskill Information Services Ltd., 1995, The economics of tin: London, Roskill Information Services Ltd., 299 p.

Annual Average U.S. Tin Price (Dollars per pound 1 )

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1880 0.208 1910 0.341 1940 0.498 1970 1.741

1881 0.208 1911 0.423 1941 0.520 1971 1.673

1882 0.234 1912 0.461 1942 0.520 1972 1.775

1883 0.208 1913 0.443 1943 0.520 1973 2.276

1884 0.181 1914 0.343 1944 0.520 1974 3.963

1885 0.195 1915 0.386 1945 0.520 1975 3.398

1886 0.216 1916 0.435 1946 0.545 1976 3.798

1887 0.249 1917 0.618 1947 0.779 1977 5.346

1888 0.262 1918 0.888 1948 0.993 1978 6.296

1889 0.209 1919 0.633 1949 0.993 1979 7.539

1890 0.214 1920 0.483 1950 0.955 1980 8.460

1891 0.208 1921 0.299 1951 1.271 1981 7.331

1892 0.206 1922 0.326 1952 1.205 1982 6.539

1893 0.201 1923 0.427 1953 0.958 1983 6.548

1894 0.181 1924 0.502 1954 0.918 1984 6.238

1895 0.141 1925 0.579 1955 0.947 1985 5.960

1896 0.132 1926 0.653 1956 1.014 1986 3.832

1897 0.136 1927 0.644 1957 0.963 1987 4.188

1898 0.157 1928 0.504 1958 0.951 1988 4.414

1899 0.251 1929 0.452 1959 1.021 1989 5.202

1900 0.299 1930 0.317 1960 1.014 1990 3.863

1901 0.167 1931 0.245 1961 1.133 1991 3.628

1902 0.268 1932 0.220 1962 1.146 1992 4.024

1903 0.281 1933 0.391 1963 1.166 1993 3.498

1904 0.280 1934 0.522 1964 1.577 1994 3.691

1905 0.314 1935 0.504 1965 1.782 1995 4.156

1906 0.398 1936 0.464 1966 1.640 1996 4.124

1907 0.382 1937 0.543 1967 1.534 1997 3.815

1908 0.295 1938 0.423 1968 1.481 1998 3.733

1909 0.297 1939 0.503 1969 1.644

1 To convert to dollars per kilogram, multiply by 2.20462.

Note: 1880-1936, New York price for Grade A Straits (Malaysian) tin (99.85% pure), in Engineering and Mining Journal. 1937-66, New York price for Grade A Straits (Malaysian) tin (99.85% pure), in E&MJ Metal and Mineral Markets. 1967-76, New York price for Grade A Straits (Malaysian) tin (99.85% pure), in Metals Week. 1976-98, Metals Week composite price, in Metals Week (through June 14, 1993) and Platt’s Metals Week.161 

## Average Yearend Titanium Sponge Price

(Dollars per pound)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars
Current dollars 

# Ti

Titanium

by Joseph Gambogi

Significant events affecting titanium prices since 1958

1971 Research for Supersonic Transport terminated

1975-76 Military aircraft production peak (F-14 and F-15)

1977-81 Rapid increase in orders for commercial aircraft

1982-84 Collapse of the commercial aircraft market

1984-86 Production of B1-B bombers

1985-89 Renewed strength in the commercial aircraft market

1988-89 Increases in U.S. sponge production capacity

1990-94 Reductions in military and commercial aerospace

1992 Sodium-reduction sponge plant closed at Ashtabula, OH

1993 Magnesium-reduction sponge plant commissioned at Henderson, NV

1994-97 Surge in consumer goods and commercial aerospace orders

1997-98 Cancellation of some commercial aircraft orders

Discovered in 1790, titanium is well known as a light metal

with excell ent corrosion resistance (Barksdale, 1966, p. 3). Titanium sponge is the most basic form of titanium metal and

can be produced from the minerals rutile, leucoxene, and162 ilmenite. Titanium metal is consumed primarily in the

commercial and military aerospace industri e s. Large-scale production capacity of sponge exists in China, Japan, Kazakhstan, Russia, Ukraine, and the United States. Unlike

some metals, titanium is not sold on any market exchanges. Although often unspecified, sponge prices are normally based

on a minimum 93.3-percent titanium content with a Brinell

hardness of less than 120.

A lthough commercial production of titanium pigment s began in the early 1900’s, commercially p roduced titanium

metal was not available until 1948. During the first two

decades of the commercial development of titanium metal, the price per pound declined sign ificantly. Cancellation of the

SST program in 1971 tended to keep demand and prices for

titanium sponge low through 1973. From 1973 through 1981, however, prices rose along with general ly increasing orders

for commercial aircraft and other industrial uses. The historic high price in 1981 and the subsequent price collapse were be lieved to have been accentuated by an overestimation of

aircraft orders that did not materialize or were later canceled

as the aircraft market det eriorated, leaving some producers with large inventories of titanium metal products to be drawn

from during a period of lower demand (N ational Materials Advisory Board, 1983, p. 7-22). From 1985 through 1989,

titanium metal prices wer e again on the rise, reflecting

renewed strength in the co mmercial aircraft and other

industrial markets. Military aircraft programs, such as the

B-1B bomber program, also contributed to the rise in demand during this period. Owing to this increased demand, two of

the domestic sponge producers made moderate expansions to
their exist

ing capacity during 1988 and 1989 (Titanium Development Association, 1990, p. 3).

The early 1990’s marked the end of the Cold War and the beginning of sharp cuts in defense spending. Concurrently, commercial aircraft and engine producers were reducing raw material inventory levels causing a significant fall in titanium

metal demand and prices. Domestic consumption of titanium sponge fell by 42% in 1991.

Owin g to decreased demand and the availability of imported material, RMI Titanium Co. cl o sed its 10,900-

metric-t o n-per-year sponge production plant at Ashtabula, OH, in 1992 (RMI Titanium Co., 1992, p. 11). The closure left two remaining producers in the United States. In 1993, Titanium Metals Corp. commissioned a 10,000-
ton-per-year sponge plant at its Henderson, NV, facility. The expansion was base d on a derivation of the Kroll process

cal led Vacuum Distillation Process (VDP). According to industry reports, the new plant produced a higher quality

sponge at lower operating costs. Following the commissioning

of the VDP plant, much of the old Kroll plant capacity was idled (American Metal Market, 1993a). Imports of titanium sponge rose sharply during the mid1990’s. Although it is not apparent from published prices of domestic sponge, imports were available at substantially less than the domestic published price (American Metal Market, 1993b). In 1994, the average unit value of imports reached

a record low of

$1.58 per pound. A new use of titanium

metal in golf club heads led to a resurgence in consumption

for titanium in 1995 (American Metal Market, 1996). In addition, new comme rcial aircraft orders rose sharply from

1995 to 1997 (Aviation Week & Space Technology, 1997). By 1997, domestic consumption of titanium sponge reached a record high of 32,000 metric tons. Also in 1997, the total

value of sponge imports reached a record high. According to

U.S. Customs statistics, the average unit value of sponge imports was $3.42 per pound.

The instabilities in Asian economies caused a cancellation

of aircraft orders in 1998 (ISRI Commodities Report, 1998).

These cancellations resulted in a moderate fall in consumption of titanium during 1998. Although prices for titanium metal products were also affected, long-term supply agreements

between aircraft producers and titanium producers helped

stabilize prices for some titanium products (Metal Bulletin, 1998).

References Cited

American Metal Market, 1993a, Greater penalty sought against

CIS’s titanium: American Metal Market, v. 101, no. 174, September 9, p. 1. ———1993b, Tit a nium prices drop as Timet strike continues: American Metal Market, v. 101, no. 247, December 27, p. 1. ———1995, Titanium tees off to a birdie: American Metal Market, v. 104, no. 147, September 9, p. 1.

Av iation Week & Space Technology, 1997, Boeing suppliers

warn of protracted delays: Aviation Week & Space Technology, v. 147, no. 13, p. 22. Barksdale, Jelks, 1966, Titanium—Its occurrence and technology: New York, The Ronald Press Company, 691 p. Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc., 1998, Titanium—A titanic slide: ISRI Commodities Report, v. 4., no. 24, December 16, p. 1-2.

Metal Bulletin, 1998, RMI secures new long-term aerospace contracts: Metal Bulletin, no. 8253, February 16 , p. 13.

Natio nal Materials Advisory Board, 1983, Titanium—Past,

present, and future: Washington, DC, National Academy Press, 209 p.

RMI Titanium Co., 1992, Annual report 1992: Niles, OH, RMI Titanium Co., 33 p.

Titanium Development Ass ociation, 1990, Statistical review

1980-1989: Dayton, OH, Titanium Development Association, 27 p.163 Average Yearend Titanium Sponge Price

(Dollars per pound 1 )

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1941 5.25 1956 2.75 1971 1.32 1986 4.10

1942 5.25 1957 2.25 1972 1.32 1987 4.10

1943 5.25 1958 1.82 1973 1.44 1988 4.50

1944 5.25 1959 1.60 1974 2.25 1989 5.05

1945 5.25 1960 1.60 1975 2.70 1990 4.75

1946 5.25 1961 1.60 1976 2.73 1991 4.75

1947 6.50 1962 1.46 1977 2.98 1992 3.75

1948 5.50 1963 1.44 1978 3.28 1993 3.75

1949 5.00 1964 1.32 1979 3.98 1994 4.38

1950 5.00 1965 1.32 1980 7.02 1995 4.38

1951 5.00 1966 1.32 1981 7.65 1996 4.38

1952 5.00 1967 1.32 1982 5.55 1997 4.38

1953 5.00 1968 1.32 1983 5.70 1998 4.38

1954 4.50 1969 1.32 1984 4.13

1955 3.45 1970 1.32 1985 3.75

1 To convert to dollars per metric ton, multiply by 2,204.62.

Sources: E&MJ Metal and Mineral Markets (1941-51),(1952-65, 72-82), Metals Week (1967-71), American Metal Market (1983-98).

Prices for the periods from 1952 through 1965 and 1972 through 1982 were published by the U.S. Bureau of Mines, but origin is

unknown.(This page intentionally left blank.)165 

### Annual Average Tungsten Price
(Dollars per short ton unit)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars

Current dollars 

# W Tungsten

by Kim B. Shedd

Significant events affecting tungsten prices since 1958

1963 Sudden decrease in exports from China, North Korea, and Russia

1965-89 Disposal of tungsten concentrates from the U.S. Government stockpiles

1979-93 Increasing dominance of China in the world market

1981-82 Sharp recession

1991 U.S. antidumping duty imposed on Chinese concentrates and dissolution of the Soviet Union

1992-98 Exports of tungsten from Russia and other countries of the former Soviet Union to the world market

Tungsten has a wide range of industrial uses. The largest

use is as tungsten carbide in cemented carbides. Cemented

carbides (also called hardmetals) are wear-resistant materials

used by the metalworking, mining, and construction

industries. Tungsten metal wires, electrodes, and/or contacts

are used in lighting, electronic, electrical, heating, and welding applications. Tungsten is also used to make tool steels, wearresistant alloy parts and coatings, superalloys for turbine blades, and heavy metal alloys for armaments, heat sinks, and high-density applications, such as weights and counterwe ights.

Chemi cal uses of tungsten include catalysts, inorganic pigments, and high-temperature lubricants. Tungsten prices and many tungsten statistics are quoted in units of tungsten trioxide (WO 3 ). The short ton unit, used in the United States, is 1% of a short ton (20 pounds) and

tungsten trioxide is 79.3% tungsten. Therefore, a short ton
unit of W O 3 equals 20 pounds of WO 3 and contains 7.19 kilograms (15.86 pounds) of tungsten. The metric ton unit, used in most other countries, is 1% of a metric ton (10 kilograms). A metric ton unit of WO 3 contains 7.93 kilograms (17.48 pounds) of tungsten.

Un t il recently, the main reference price for tungsten was the price of tungsten concentrates. In the early 1990’s, the

trade in tungsten concentrates decreased, and the market

shifted towards th e price of the intermediate product

ammonium paratungstate as a reference price (International Tungsten Industry Association, 1997, p. 32). Prices of

tungsten concentrates and ammonium paratungstate generally166 follow similar trends. One would expect the price of

ammonium paratungstate to exceed that of concentrate by an

amount equivalent to th e processing costs to convert

concentrate to ammonium paratungstate. In 1992, however,

the Metal Bulletin price for ammonium paratungstate actually

fell below that for concentrate. At that time, the normal premium for ammonium paratungstate was estimate d to be

between $23 and $32 per short ton unit. The following were cited as possible explanations for this unusual pricing situation:

the availability of very inexpensive feedstock for Chinese

ammonium paratungstate plants or Government subsidies for those plants (Maby, 1993).

The main forms of tungsten us ed by downstream consuming industries are tungsten carbide powder, tungsten
metal powder, ferrotungsten, and various tungsten chemical compounds. With the exceptions of ferrotungsten and

ammonium paratungstate, prices for these products are no longer published on a regular basis. Historically, tungsten prices have fluctuated widely as the

market alternated between periods of scarcity an d oversupply.

In addition to general economic conditions a nd industrial activity, the following factors have affected the tungst e n market over time: China’s position as the world’s largest producer; changes in availability from Communist or formerly

Communist countries; purc hases for or sales from various

Government stockpiles; trade controls; bui ldup of or reduction in inventories held by industry; fluctuations in production by

a large number of widely dispersed small producers; differing political, social, and economic objectives of producing countries; industry fragmentation in that most countries that produce tungsten are not l arge consumers; rapid shifts in demand; and increases in demand in support of military activity (Engineering and Mining Journal, 1967; Burrows, 1971, p. 1-7 and 36-37; Rawlings, 1974; Lincoln, 1986). From the late 1950’s to early 1960’s, the tungsten market was characterized by oversupply and low prices. This was a

result of several factors. Following the Korean conflict, high prices combined with U.S. Government programs to stockpile

tungsten and to encourage domestic production by purchasing tungsten concentrates from U.S. mines at a fixed price led to

an incre ase in production (Geehan, 1952; Grainger, 1960).

This was followed

by reduced demand when the U.S.

Government’s tungsten acquisi t ion program was completed

and increased supply as a result of the disposal of stockpiled

ore from the United Kingdom, the resumption of shipments

from Korea, and increased offers of tungsten from China and Russia (Grainger, 1960, 1962).

In late 1963, exports of tungsten from China, North Korea,

and R ussia suddenly decreased significantly from those of previous years. The apparent withdrawal of these countries

from the world market combined with an increase in demand

from Eastern Europe resulted in a supply squeeze and a significant increase in prices by late 1964. The high prices led

to an increase in mine production from non-Communist

countries and increased recycling of tungsten-bearing scrap. In 1965, the U.S. Government bega n a long-term sales program of tungsten concentrates from Defense Production

Act inventories. The increase in supply from these sources

was n ot enough to balance the loss of tungsten from

Communist countries during a period of strong worldwide

demand (Grainger, 1965; Engineering and Mining Jou rnal, 1967). As a result, the annual average U.S. price of tungsten

concentrate in 1966 was more than four times greater than

that of 1963.

Prices remained relatively high during the late 1960’s owing

to strong demand and only limited exports of tungsten from

China. U.S. tungsten consumption was strong, at least in

part, in support

of the war in Vietnam and for increased

p roduction of tungsten carbide balls for ballpoint p ens and

studs for automobile snow tires. Sales of tungsten concentrates from the U.S. Government at fixed prices contributed

to the stabilization of the U.S. market (Stev ens, 1969). Between March 1966 and December 1973, the U.S.

Government’s General Services Administration (GS A) “off the shelf” fixed prices for tungsten concentrates were quoted as the price of concentrates in the U.S. market. Between

October 1969 and February 1970, European prices for

tungsten concentrates quoted in Metal Bulletin increased from approximat ely $46 per short ton unit to a high of approximately $80 per short ton unit (Ratzker, 1971). The increase in European prices was reported to be primarily the

result of a continued high level of industrial ac tivity in

combination with the absence of significant quantities of

tungsten shipments from China. In 1969, as a result of stable

fixed prices in the United States, increasing market prices in Europe, and the availability of tungsten from t he U.S.

Defense Production Act inventories, t h e United States

became a net exporter of tungsten concentrates for the first time in history (Stevens, 1970).

A worldwide economic slowdown in 1971 caused reduced

demand for tungsten, particularly from the steel and machine

tool industries ( Mining Journal, 1972). During 1972 and 1973, economic conditions improved, and demand for

tungsten increased. U.S. prices were quoted at the GSA “off

the shelf” fixed price of $55 pe r short ton unit. European prices decreased to a low of approximately $30 per short ton

unit by late 1972. The downward trend in European prices during a period of increasing demand was attributed to substantial inventories overhanging the market. By late 1972/early 1973, the rate of consumption had increased enough to cause a significant reduction in invento ry levels, and European prices began to increase (Rawlings, 1974).

Toward the end of 1973, the GSA discontinued its “off the

shelf” fixed-price sales of tungsten concentrates in favor of monthly sales on a sealed-bid basis (Stevens, 1973). From

1974 through 1976, awards of tungsten concentrates from U.S. Government stockpiles were at unit values close to the prevailing European prices quoted in Metal Bulletin. In 1974, high levels of tungsten consumption in the United States and Europe and the lack of large inventories resulted in an167 increase in the Metal

Bulletin price to more than $100 per

short ton unit (Rawlings, 1975). The Metal Bulletin price

decreased in 1975 as a result of recessionary economic

conditions in Western markets and a corresponding decrease in tungsten demand. During the next 2 years, tungsten prices

increased sharply to record highs as a result of worldwide inflation, strong buying by Eastern European countries, a

recovery in Western dema nd, and reports of decreased quantities of tungsten offered by China (Ho, 1977). Metals

Week began publishin g U.S. spot prices for tungsten concentrates in January 1977 after a hiatus of more than 10

years. By March 1977, this price exceeded $160 per short ton
unit. By late 1977-early 1978, the price of tungsten concentrates began to decline. Although Western mine production had steadily increased, exports of tungsten from China and

releases from U.S. Government stockpiles balan ced a shortfall between production and consumption. The decline in prices during 1978 was attr ibuted to the following factors: an

increase in Western tungsten inventories during 1977; reduced

demand in Western Europe, particularly for f errotungsten;
i ncreased Western mine production; and the absen ce of

Eastern European buyers as a significant influence in the Western market (Thurber, 1979).

Betwe en late February 1979 and late October 1981, the average of Metals Week prices for tungsten concentrate was relatively stable in the $120- to $140-per-short-ton-unit range. By late 1981, t he worldwide recession began to affect tungsten demand. In addition, China was exporting steadily increasing amounts of tungsten concentrates and intermediate products to Western markets (Thurber, 1982; Ho, 1986). In

the mid-1980's, the availability of low-priced intermediate products from China contr ibuted to the downward trend in

the price of tungsten concentrates. There was a marked

cha nge from concentrate prices governing the price of

intermediate products to intermediate pr oduct prices governing concentrate prices (Ho, 1986). The price of

concentrate trended downward to a low of $28 per short ton unit by late 1986, and then fluctuated between $30 and $65

per short ton unit during the next 2 years. From September

1988 to late 1990, the price steadily decreased to $31 per short ton unit. The decrease in price during a 3-year period

of strong Western consumption was attributed to continued oversupply of Chinese tungsten (Bunting, 1991).

In mid-1991, the concentrate price increased to $67 per

short ton unit following the imposition of a 151% antidumping duty against Chinese concentrates in the U.S. market. During

the next 2 years, the price steadily fell to $28 per short ton unit. This price decline was attributed to continued exports of tungsten materials from China during a period of reduced

demand as a result of the worldwide economic recession, a decrease in imports by former Soviet countries following the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, and destocking by

co nsumers (Maby, 1993). By 1993, imports of Chinese

tungsten concentrates and intermediate products had grown to 75% of Market Economy Countries’ supply of primary

tungsten (Bunting, 1994). Added to the increasing supply

from China were exports of tungsten materials from Russia

and other countries of the former Soviet Union. By 1994, almost all of the tungsten mines in Market Economy Countries had ceas e d production, and Chinese mine production was also at a low level as a result of the persistent

low prices of tungsten concentrates (Bunting, 1997). In 1994,

the world economy and industrial activity improved, demand

for tungsten increased, and prices began to rise (Maby, 1995). By mid-1995, the concentrate price rose to $70 per short ton
unit. This led to large releases of tungsten from Government stockpiles in Chi

n a, Kazakhstan, and Russia; releases of inventories from Russian mines; and an increase in mine production, par ticularly in China. By early 1996, an oversupply situation had developed. As a result, prices

decreased and mine production was reduced. By late 1996,

most of the inventories that had been overhanging the market

had been drawn down (Bunting, 1997). In 1997, demand for

tungsten increased, but supply was plentiful, and pr i ces continued to decrease. Prices decreased again during 1998.

Demand was strong during the first hal f of the year, but

wea kened during the second half. At yearend, the Metals

Week price for tungsten concentrate was bet ween $40 and $45 per short ton unit.

References Cited

Bunting, R.M., 1991, Tungsten—A strong year—But: Engineering and Mining Journal, v. 192, no. 3, March, p. 27-

29. ———1994, Presentation to I. T.I.A. AGM—11/3/94, i n International Tungsten Industry Association annual general meeting, 7 th

, Huntsville, AL, November 2-4, 1994,

Proce e dings: London, International Tungsten Industry Association, 16 p. ———1997, Tungsten—Can the industry meet future demand?: Engineering and Mining Journal, v. 198, no. 3, March, p. 37-

41.
Burrows, J.C., 1971, Tungsten—An industry analysis: Lexington, MA, D.C. Heath and Co., 287 p. Engineering and Mining Journal, 1967, Tungsten: Engineering and Mining Journal, v. 168, no. 2, February, p. 165-167. Geehan, R.W., 1952, Tungsten, i n Minerals Yearbook 1952, v. I: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 1066-1082. Grainger, P.E., 1960, Tungsten, in Annual review 1960: Mining Journal, p. 41.
———1962, Tungsten, in Annual review 1962: Mining Journal, p. 41. ———1965, Tungsten, in Mining annual review 1965: Mining Journal, p. 48-49.
Ho, Eric, 1977, Tungsten, in Mining annual review 1977: Mining Journal, p. 82-83. ———1986, Tungsten, in Mining annual review 1986: Mining Journal, p. 73. Lincoln, G.M., Jr., 1986, Tungsten—Bleak market environment:168

Engineering and Mining Journal, v. 187, no. 3, March, p. 59-61.

International Tungsten Industry Asso ciation, 1997, Tungsten: London, International Tungsten Industry Association, 33 p. Maby, Michael, 1993, Tungsten, in Metals and minerals annual review 1993: Mining Journal, p. 72-73. ———1995, Tungste n, i n Metals and minerals annual review 1995: Mining Journal, p. 63-64. Mining Journal, 1972, Tungsten, in Mining annual review 1972: Mining Journal, p. 80-83. Ratzker, Menno, 1971, Tungsten: Engineering and Mining Journal, v. 172, no. 3, March, p. 149-150. Rawlings, J.W. , 1974, Tungsten—‘73 market firmed, but GSA

remains pricing key: Engineering and Mining Journal, v. 175, no. 3, March, p. 130-131. ———1975, Tungsten—Prices take off in ‘74 on good demand and lack of surplus inventories: Engineering and Mining Journal, v. 176, no. 3, March, p. 133-134.
Stevens, R.F., Jr., 1969, Tungsten: Engineering and Mining Journal, v. 170, no. 3, March, p. 130-133.
———1970, Tungsten: Engineering and Mining Journal, v. 171, no. 3, March, p. 106-109. ———1973, Tungsten, in Minerals Yearbook 1973, v. I: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 1245-1261. Thurber, W.C., 1979, Tu ngsten—U.S. consumption at highest

level since 1974: Engineering and Mining Journal, v. 180, no. 3, March, p. 139-143.
———1982, Tungsten—Production and consumption drop as economies weaken: Engineering and Mining Journal, v. 183, no. 3, March, p. 98-100.

Annual Average Tungsten Price (Dollars per short ton unit 1 )

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1959 13 1969 43 1979 128 1989 76

1960 19 1970 49 1980 130 1990 61

1961 17 1971 55 1981 129 1991 71

1962 12 1972 55 1982 97 1992 67

1963 9 1973 55 1983 77 1993 49

1964 15 1974 80 1984 78 1994 68

1965 23 1975 83 1985 62 1995 89

1966 38 1976 104 1986 42 1996 75

1967 43 1977 149 1987 46 1997 69

1968 43 1978 128 1988 54 1998 60

1 To convert to dollars per metric ton unit, multiply by 1.10231. To convert to dollars per kilogram contained tungsten, multiply by 0.139.

Note: Annual average prices were derived from price changes reported in the following sources: 1959-66, tungsten ore (wolframite) in New York, “ordinary quality,” excluding duty, in American Metal Market. 1967-73, tungsten ore, domestic quote reflecting the U.S. Government's General Services Administration price, in American Metal

Market's Metal Statistics 1972 and Metal Statistics 1974.
1974-76, tungsten ore, minimum 65% tungsten trioxide, European market, excluding duty, in U.S. Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook, converted from pounds sterling per metric ton unit as reported in Metal Bulletin. 1977-88, tungsten ore, minimum 65% tungsten trioxide, U.S. spot price, c.i.f., excluding duty, in Metals Week. 1989-98, ammonium paratungstate, U.S. free market, in Metal Bulletin.169 

### Annual Average Vanadium Pentoxide Price

(Dollars per pound)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars

Current dollars 

# V

Vanadium

by Robert G. Reese, Jr.

.

Significant events affecting vanadium prices since 1958

1988-89 Short supply owing to technical problems at some producers, and to strong demand from steel and aerospace industries

1993 Market oversupply all year; price fell despite increase in consumption

1997 Disposal of last vanadium pentoxide holdings in the U.S. National Defense Stockpile (NDS)

Vanadium was first described by Andres Manuel del Rio in

1801. He had isolated it from lead ores from Zimapan,

Mexico (Busch, 1961, p. 18). At the start of the 20 t h century,
vanadium remained little more than a chemical curiosity with

no commercial value because of its rarity and high cost. The supply and cost restrictions were significantly altered in the early years of the 20 th century with the discovery of rich

vanadium deposits in several countries, including the United

States. In 1905, the American Vanadium Co. was established

to extract vanadium from ores discovered in Colorado (Kuck, 1985, p. 985). Commercial production began shortly

thereafter.

Two main prices are associated with vanadium—one is for

the ferroalloy ferrovanadium, and the other for vanadium pentoxide; prices for vanad ium metal are not published.

Because much of the wor ld’s ferrovanadium is made from

vanadium pentoxide, the price for vanadi um pentoxide has

been used. Owing in part to its relative scarcity and the absence of free

market trading, the vanadium pentoxide price has historically170 been a producer price. This has resulted in low volatility and relatively stable prices, showing a gr a dual upward trend, as

can be seen in the graph above for the period from 1959 through 1988. Since the late 1980’s, the vanadium pentoxide price appears to have become more volatile. This increased volatility is attributed to the availability of additional vanadium pentoxide supplies from such countries as China and Russia,

sales of the r emaining vanadium pentoxide from the NDS during the 1990's, and, to a very limited extent, the potential substitution of other metals for vanadium in certain alloys. References Cited

Busch, P.M., 1961, Vanadium—A materials survey: U.S. Bureau of Mines Information Circular 8060, 95 p. Kuck, P.H., 1985, Vanadium, in Mineral facts and problems: U.S. Bureau of Mines Bulletin 675, p. 895-915.

Annual Average Vanadium Pentoxide Price 1

(Dollars per pound 2 )

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1959 1.38 1969 1.51 1979 3.57 1989 6.10

1960 1.38 1970 1.25 1980 3.07 1990 4.21

1961 1.38 1971 2.85 1981 3.14 1991 2.75

1962 1.38 1972 1.85 1982 2.77 1992 2.28

1963 1.25 1973 1.85 1983 2.75 1993 1.45

1964 1.15 1974 2.08 1984 2.36 1994 2.95

1965 1.15 1975 2.14 1985 2.50 1995 2.80

1966 1.25 1976 3.38 1986 2.53 1996 3.07

1967 1.25 1977 3.47 1987 2.95 1997 4.00

1968 1.15 1978 3.47 1988 3.40 1998 5.47

1 Minimum 98% vanadium pentoxide anhydride.

2 To convert to dollars per kilogram, multiply by 2.20462.

Source: Metal Bulletin (1959-98).171 

### Annual Average Zinc Price
(Dollars per pound)

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars

Current dollars 

# Zn

Zinc

By Jozef Plachy

Significant events affecting zinc prices since 1958

1954-64 Stockpile buildup; import quotas

1965-69 Vietnam conflict; import quotas terminate; stockpile releases

1971-73 Price control; slow price increase

1975-82 Stockpile sales terminate; declining production

1977 Recessions

1982 Recession; introduction of zinc penny

1983-89 Period of sustained economic growth; stagnating domestic production; high zinc imports and prices

1987-89 Short supply of zinc metal; strong world demand

The rapid development of the vast Joplin, MO, zinc mining

district in the early 1870’s was stimulated by the growing use of zinc by U.S. industry. During the first half of the 20 t h

century, two pricing centers emerged—St. Louis, MO, a n d

New York, NY. The New York price was usually higher

because it included shipping charges. Because the prevailing

method of production was pyrometallurgical, yielding Prime Western (PW) zinc, both prices were based on that grade. Higher grades of zinc cost more becaus e of the expense of additional refining. During 1960’ s, the East St. Louis, IL, price of zinc remained stable, which can be attributed partially to Government policies pertaining to stockpile programs and import quotas and tariffs. The price increase in this decade was172 about 13%. In 1965, import quotas were lifted, and Public

Law 89-322, authorizing the first of the annual zinc disposals

from the Government stockpile, was enacted. In 1971, the importance of the East St. Louis price diminished when a major producer began to include shipping charges in its price quotation. The emergence of the New York price coincided

with Metals Week becoming the main pricing medium for zinc

in the United States.

Because price controls were in forc e from 1971 through

1973 and any increase of price had to be appro ved by the

U.S. Price Commission, zinc prices increased only gradually.

After price controls were abolished, the price for high-grade

zinc metal rose abruptly nearly doubling by mid-1975. For the next 11 years, the annual average price fluctuated within an $0.18-per-pound band (Jolly, 1993). By 1980, more than a decade after electrolytic refining had

become dominant in the production of domestic zinc, HG was made the base grade for pricing purposes, and Metals Week

introduced its weighted average price, which it based on daily

sales of HG. The largest increase in the history of the zinc price began with a small, $ 0.04-per-pound increase in

November 1987 and escalated to a $0.20-cent increase in February 1989. The main impetus for this steep increase was tightness of supply brought about by strong world demand; strikes, technical problems at some smelters, and hurricanerelated delays of zinc shipments from Mexico were also contributing factors. In the 1980’s, U.S. refinery production supplied only about one-third of domestic demand. As a result, world price became the dominant factor in setting the domestic price.

Outside of the United States, the world p ricing basis for

zinc has essentia lly been the price quoted by the London

Metal Exchange (LME), which introduced its first zinc

contract in 1915. In order to stabilize the sometimes volatile

LME prices, a group of non-U.S. zinc producers established

the European Producer Price (EPP) in 1964. Later, dissatisfaction with the EPP pricing system, mainly as it related

to the settlement price of zinc concentrate and th e determination of smelter t reatment charges, led to the

reemergence of LME zinc quotations as the principal basis for

world zinc pricing (Jolly, 1997, p. 218-221). The choice of

an LME basis was further solidified when the LME switched

from British pounds to U.S. dollars for all its transactions in

1998. During the 1990’s, the price for refined zin c remained rather uneventful, reflecting the supply and demand of the

market.

References Cited

Jolly, J.H., 1993, Zinc, in Metal prices in the Un i ted States through 1991: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 191-195.
———1997, U.S. zinc industry: Baltimore, MD, American Literary Press, Inc., 312 p.173 Annual Average Zinc Price (Dollars per pound 1 )

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1875 0.070 1906 0.061 1937 0.065 1968 0.135

1876 0.072 1907 0.058 1938 0.046 1969 0.147

1877 0.060 1908 0.046 1939 0.051 1970 0.153

1878 0.049 1909 0.054 1940 0.063 1971 0.161

1879 0.052 1910 0.054 1941 0.075 1972 0.178

1880 0.055 1911 0.056 1942 0.083 1973 0.207

1881 0.052 1912 0.068 1943 0.083 1974 0.360

1882 0.053 1913 0.055 1944 0.083 1975 0.390

1883 0.045 1914 0.051 1945 0.083 1976 0.370

1884 0.044 1915 0.142 1946 0.087 1977 0.344

1885 0.043 1916 0.136 1947 0.105 1978 0.310

1886 0.044 1917 0.089 1948 0.136 1979 0.373

1887 0.046 1918 0.080 1949 0.122 1980 0.374

1888 0.049 1919 0.070 1950 0.139 1981 0.446

1889 0.050 1920 0.078 1951 0.180 1982 0.385

1890 0.055 1921 0.047 1952 0.162 1983 0.414

1891 0.050 1922 0.057 1953 0.109 1984 0.486

1892 0.046 1923 0.066 1954 0.107 1985 0.404

1893 0.040 1924 0.063 1955 0.123 1986 0.380

1894 0.035 1925 0.076 1956 0.135 1987 0.419

1895 0.036 1926 0.073 1957 0.114 1988 0.602

1896 0.039 1927 0.062 1958 0.103 1989 0.820

1897 0.041 1928 0.060 1959 0.115 1990 0.746

1898 0.046 1929 0.065 1960 0.130 1991 0.528

1899 0.058 1930 0.046 1961 0.116 1992 0.584

1900 0.044 1931 0.036 1962 0.116 1993 0.462

1901 0.041 1932 0.029 1963 0.120 1994 0.493

1902 0.048 1933 0.040 1964 0.136 1995 0.534

1903 0.054 1934 0.042 1965 0.145 1996 0.511

1904 0.051 1935 0.043 1966 0.145 1997 0.646

1905 0.059 1936 0.049 1967 0.139 1998 0.514

1 To convert to dollars per kilogram, multiply by 2.20462.

Note:
1875-1904, New York price for Prime Western zinc (98% pure), in Ingalls, W.R., Lead and Zinc in the United States, McGraw-Hill, NY, 1980, p. 342. 1905-70, St. Louis/East St. Louis producer price for Prime Western zinc, in American Metal Market/Metal Statistics. 1971-79, U.S. Dealers Prime Western delivered price, in Metals Week. 1980-93, U.S. Dealers High Grade zinc (99.9% pure) delivered price, in Metals Week. 1994-98, U.S. Dealers Special High Grade zinc (99.99% pure) delivered price, in Platt’s Metals Week.(This page intentionally left blank.)175 

### Yearend Zirconium Sponge Metal Price

(Dollars per kilogram)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars

Current dollars



### Yearend Zirconium Powder Metal Price

(Dollars per kilogram)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998

YEARDOLLARS 1992 dollars
Current dollars 

# Zr

Zirconium

by James B. Hedrick176 Significant events affecting zirconium prices

1957-62 Improved production methods and increased scale of operations and capacity led to declining prices

1977-78 Number of producers reduced to one; inflation, and lack of competition; demand increasing for high-purity specialty

powders and metal

Zirconium metal is sold in three basic form s —powder,

sponge, and crystal bar. Martin H. Klaproth discovered the

element in Germany in 1789 by analyzing zircon (Weeks and Leicester, 1 968). Production of the first impure zirconium

metal was by Jöns Jakob Berzelius in 1824 (Berzelius, 1825).

Commercial quantities of the ductile metal were not produced

until 100 years later when Anton Eduard van Arkel and Jan

Hedrik de Boer discovered the iodide, or crystal bar, process (van Arkel and de Boer, 1925). Powdered zirconium metal

was available on domestic markets as early as 1930, when it

was used primarily for its pyrophoric and alloying properties. Principal uses were for ammunition prim ers, vacuum-tube

get ters, flash powder used in photography, and corrosion-resistant steel alloys (Kalish, 1953). An economic

process to produce zirconium metal sponge (Kroll, or magnesium-red uction, process) was developed in the mid1940's and became commercially available in the early 1950’s (Kroll, 1937; Kroll, Schlechten, and Yerkes, 1946; Kroll, Schlechten, and others, 1947; Kroll, Anders o n, and others, 1948). Zirconium sponge is used in the production of zirconium metal and alloys, especially for use in nuclear fuel cladding, corrosion resistant piping in chemical processing plants, and heat exchangers. Crystal bar, which is a very high purity form of zirconium metal that is used mostly in research and special applications, is not covered in this report.

Zirconium Sponge

In January 1945, the U.S. Bureau of Mines (USBM) began

research to develop a commercial process for making

zirconium sponge meta l (Etherington, Dalzell, and Lillie, 1955). By 1947, the USBM was operating a 27-kilogram (60-pound)-per-week pil ot plant in Albany, OR, using the

Kroll proc ess. In response to the U.S. Navy's interest in

zirconium for possible use in nuclear powered su bmarines, capacity at the pilot plant wa s expanded in 1949 (11,800 kilograms), 1950, and twice in 1951 (Shelton and others, 1956). By 1951, USBM capacity had reached about 136,000 kilograms (300,000 pounds) per year. That same year,

commercial price quotations for zirconi u m sponge began at $22 per k ilogram ($10 per pound). In 1952, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) contracted with Ca rborundum

Metals Co., Akron, NY, to supply the metal for 5 years. By 1955, the Carborundum plant was producin g more sponge than was needed for the U.S. Navy’s nuclear submarine

progra m. At this time, the USBM's zirconium plant was

converted to a metallurgical research facility. From 1959 to 1977 , the price of zirconium sponge remained fairly stable, averaging from about $14 to $17 per kilogram ($31-$37 per pound). The decline was also attributed to the slowing of the

nuclear submarine program and the use of substitute materials

for commercial powerplants. Beginning in 1978, prices for

zirconium sponge increased, following the pa ttern of zirconium powder. The substantial price increase has been

attributed primarily to the U.S. economy because lagging U.S.

economic activity and double-digit inflation increased operating costs throughout the i ndustry. The twofold price

increase for zirconium sponge may have been associated with

the 50% reduction in capacity by the sole domestic producer,

the cost of implementing process envi r onmental controls to regulate naturally occurring radioactive materials, and the

continued deman d for replacement fuel cladding and

structural repairs at nuclear powerplants (Templeton, 1993). In the 1980’s and 1990’s, the use of zirconium sponge in military and commercial nuclear powerplants, heat exchangers, and specialty chemical piping for cor r osive environments eventually overshadowed the use of the metal

in powder and crystal bar applications (Hedrick, 1989). With

no new domestic construction of nuclear powerplants, demand for zirconium metal is expected to remain stable.

Zirconium Powder

In 1932, the price quoted for powdered met a l of 98% purity was $13.23 per kilogram ($6 per pou nd) or less, depending on the quantity. The price remained stable throughout the next two decades, and the uses of the powder expanded to include applications in the cera mic, glass, and steel industries. The price for powdered zirconium declined

to a record low of $8.82 per kilogram ($4 per pound) by 1957

as the Kroll process was commercialized and the demand and

scale of operations increased. Incr eases in production and

demand for zirconium

sponge in the 1950’s also probably

contributed to the decline in the price of powder during this period. Beginning in 1977, prices for zirconium metal were tied to many factors, including the U.S. economy, as lagging

U.S. economic activity and double-digit inflation increa s ed operating costs throughout the industry. Increased energy

costs were also a factor for the substantial price increases for

zirconium powder and sponge. During the late 1970’s, the

number of zirconium powder producers declined to one for a

short time, and requirements for high-grade powder started to
increase. These events, including th e development of the hydrogen embrittlement technique (hydride-dehydride177 process) to facilitate the conversion of sponge to powder and improved demand for replacement fuel c l adding and structural repairs at nuclear powerplants, contributed to the increasing prices during this period.

Prices for zirconium powder stabilized during the 1980’s

and 1990’s as market growth decreased and demand leveled

off.

References Cited

Berzelius, J.J., 1825, Zirconium red ucirt aus flusfspathfaurem Zirconkali, und einige Eigenschaf ten der Zirconerde [Zirconium obtained by the reduction of potassium-zirconium fluoride, and certain properties of zirconium earth (oxide)]: Leipzig, Germany, (Poggendorf), Annalen der Physik, v. 4, p.

121-156. Etherington, H., Dalzell, R.C., and Lillie, D.W., 1955, Zirconium

and it s applications to nuclear reactors, chap. 1 o f The metallurgy of zirconium: New York, McGraw-Hill, p. 1. Hedrick, J.B., 1989, Zirconium and hafnium, i n Minerals Yearbook 1988, v. I: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 1049-1057. Kalish, H.S., 1953, The preparation of zirconium powder, chap. 5 of Zirconium and zirconium alloys: Cleveland, OH, American Society for Metals, p. 5-36. Kroll, W.J., 1 937, The formation of titanium and zirconium: Zeitschrift für Anorganishe Chemie, v. 234, p. 42. Kroll, W.J., Schlechten, A.W., and Yerkes, L.A., 1946, Ductile zirconium from zircon sand: Transcripts of the Electrochemistry Society, v. 89, p. 263. Kroll, W.J., Schlechten, A.W., Carmody, W.R., Yerkes, L.A., Holmes, H.P., and Gilbert, H.L., 1947, Recent progress in the metallurgy of malleable zi rconium: Transcripts of the Electrochemistry Society, v. 92, p. 99.

Krol l, W.J., Anderson, C.T., Holmes, H.P., Yerkes, L.A., and Gilbert, H.L., 1948, Large sca le laboratory production of

ductile zirconium: Transcripts of the Electrochemistry Society, v. 94, p. 1. Shelton, S.M., and others, 1956, Zirconium—Its production and properties: U. S. Bureau of Mines Bulletin 561, p. 1. Templeton, D.A., 1993, Zirconium, in Metal prices in the United States through 1991: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 197-199.

van Arkel, A.E., and de Boer, J.H., 1925, Preparation of pure titanium, zirconium, hafnium, and thorium metal: Zeitschrift

für Anorganishe und Allgemeine Chemie, v. 148, p. 345-350. Weeks, M.E., and Leicester, H.M., 1968, Discovery of the

elements (7 th ed.): Easton, PA, Journal of Chemical Education, p. 517-520.178 Yearend Zirconium Sponge Metal Price

(Dollars per kilogram 1 )

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1959 13.78 1969 13.78 1979 23.15 1989 33.07

1960 14.05 1970 13.78 1980 26.46 1990 23.15

1961 13.78 1971 13.78 1981 31.97 1991 23.15

1962 13.50 1972 13.78 1982 31.97 1992 23.15

1963 16.53 1973 13.78 1983 31.97 1993 23.15

1964 16.53 1974 13.78 1984 31.97 1994 23.15

1965 16.53 1975 13.78 1985 31.97 1995 23.15

1966 16.53 1976 13.78 1986 31.97 1996 23.15

1967 16.53 1977 15.98 1987 31.97 1997 23.15

1968 13.23 1978 26.46 1988 33.07 1998 23.15

1 Prices are an average of a range and converted from dollars per pound.

Sources: American Metal Market (1959-62, 1969-98), Engineering & Mining Journal (1963-67), and Wah Chang Albany Corp., Albany, OR (1968).

Yearend Zirconium Powder Metal Price (Dollars per kilogram 1 )

Year Price Year Price Year Price Year Price

1959 8.82 1969 27.56 1979 187.39 1989 242.51

1960 8.82 1970 27.56 1980 220.46 1990 248.02

1961 8.82 1971 27.56 1981 206.68 1991 248.02

1962 22.05 1972 22.05 1982 206.68 1992 248.02

1963 22.05 1973 22.05 1983 206.68 1993 248.02

1964 22.05 1974 35.27 1984 248.02 1994 248.02

1965 22.05 1975 35.27 1985 248.02 1995 248.02

1966 22.05 1976 35.27 1986 248.02 1996 248.02

1967 22.05 1977 187.39 1987 231.49 1997 248.02

1968 22.05 1978 187.39 1988 242.51 1998 248.02

1 Prices are an average of a range and converted from dollars per pound.

Source: American Metal Market.179 Appendix Price Deflators, 1959-98 1

Year Price deflator 2 Year Price deflator 2

1959 4.814 1979 1.933

1960 4.745 1980 1.703

1961 4.694 1981 1.543

1962 4.639 1982 1.454

1963 4.582 1983 1.409

1964 4.524 1984 1.351

1965 4.453 1985 1.304

1966 4.323 1986 1.280

1967 4.206 1987 1.235

1968 4.034 1988 1.187

1969 3.825 1989 1.132

1970 3.614 1990 1.074

1971 3.465 1991 1.030

1972 3.356 1992 1.000

1973 3.160 1993 0.971

1974 2.846 1994 0.947

1975 2.607 1995 0.921

1976 2.466 1996 0.895

1977 2.315 1997 0.874

1978 2.151 1998 0.860

1 Derived from the Consumer Price Index-All Urban Consumers provided by the U.S. Department of Labor Statistics (1992=100). The method for computing the Consumer Price Index (CPI) before 1995 shows a slightly higher rate of inflation than that derived from the newer method used in recent years. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, the new method used from 1995 through 1998 has resulted in lowering the CPI inflation rate by 0.49 percentage point per year.

2 To calculate price in constant 1992 dollars, multiply current price by price deflator. Each yearly price deflator is the

ratio of 100 to the CPI.