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

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 mineralcommodity issues, as well asfor 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, MineralIndustry Surveys, MineralCommodity 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 Indexfor 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, consumption, 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

YEAR

DOLLARS

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 price of aluminum metal was

reported to be higher than that of silver. A commercially

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

Domestic production 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 filed for the

electrolytic reduction process for aluminum. This process,

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

the mass commercial production of aluminum metal. As the

process was developed and refined, production levels

increased rapidly. By 1895, domestic production levels had

reached 1 million pounds. As production levels continued to

increase, domestic producers kept the price of aluminum low

to encourage its use by consumers. In the early 1900’s, they
2

held aluminum metal prices at a low steady level to compete

against copper in the electrical industry (U.S. Department of

Commerce, 1956, p. II.1-II.4).

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

shortages of aluminum metal began to 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 civilian needs was placed

under Government regulation (Hill, 1921).

The 1920’s saw the demand for aluminum metal

expanding, especially in the growing domestic automobile

industry. The advent of the Great Depression, however,

brought about a general decrease in demand for aluminum in

all sectors of the economy, especially in the automobile and

aircraft industries.

In 1939, the production and consumption of aluminum

shattered all previous records, enhanced by the preparations

for nationaldefense and the expandingconflictsin 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

control and held at $0.15 per pound (U.S. Department of

Commerce, 1956, p. IV.6).

After the war, the aluminum industry benefited from its

price advantage over copper and other nonferrous metals.

Aluminum, which was cheaper and more readily available

than some other metals, was used in new applications and

made substantial inroads in the construction and transportation industries.

Rearmament programs duringthe Korean conflict increased

the demand for aluminum. In 1951, the allocation of

aluminum supplies and the price of aluminum metal were

again placed under Government control (Blue, 1954, p. 137-

138). At the end of the conflict, domestic aluminum

producers began an aggressive program to develop civilian

uses for aluminum metal.

During the 1960’s, aluminum prices remained relatively

stable in the 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 inflation. As these controls were

gradually removed during 1974, prices rose to reflect the

increased cost of energy brought about by the surge in world

oil prices.

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

prices, for the most part, reflected the law of 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

tumble. 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, which 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 aluminum

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 the 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

entered the world market. Unfortunately, the aluminum

market had just entered an economic downturn and was

unable to absorb the Russian material. This period of

oversupply, decreasing demand, and increasing inventories

depressed world aluminum prices.

By the mid-1990’s, production cutbacks, increased

demand, declining inventories, and the perceived

improvement in the world market led to a dramatic rebound

in aluminum prices. Prices began to cycle downward again

during the late 1990's as the economic crisis in the Asian

market exerted pressure on the prices ofseveral commodities,

including aluminum. Once again, the aluminum market was

entering a period of oversupply. The perceived downward

influences of the Asian crisis, however, may have hastened

the decline in prices before the actual oversupply condition

occurred in the marketplace.

References Cited

Blue,Delwin, 1954, Aluminum, in Minerals Yearbook1951,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 UnitedStates 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 pound1)

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

YEAR

DOLLARS

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 States. It is used for a

variety of alloys, including those in lead-acid storage batteries

and in special solders 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 South 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—where supply disruptions in any of the major

producing countries can cause a marked price change. In

1970, a combination of high worldwide demand and short

supply from a few countries caused a considerable price spike

in the early part of that year; the price quickly subsided by

yearend. In 1974, sharply increased demand, especially for

antimony trioxide, and supply disruptions from China
6

combined to produce the highest antimony price recorded up

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

subsided. By 1994, China had clearly emerged as the

predominant world antimony producer. That year and the

followingyear,severe floodingin the antimony miningregions

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

Roskill Information Services Ltd., 1997, The economics of

antimony: London, Roskill Information Services Ltd., 184 p.

Annual Average Antimony Price

(Dollars per pound1)

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

YEAR

DOLLARS

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 20th century (Greenspoon, 1976, p. 99).

Most of the arsenic used domestically is consumed as the

trioxide, 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 arsenic 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 price
8

stabilized.

During this time, however, the United States and other

countries began 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 elimination 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 price 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 andproblems:

U.S. Bureau of Mines Bulletin 667, p. 99-106.

Yearend Arsenic Metal Price1

(Dollars per pound2)

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

YEAR

DOLLARS

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 usefulfor various applications in its

alloy, oxide, and metallic forms. Beryllium metal is used

principally in aerospace and defense applications because of

itsstiffness, light weight, and dimensionalstability 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 electrical insulator in

some applications. The United States, one of only three

countries that process beryllium ores and concentrates into
10

berylliumproducts, suppliesmost 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 aluminumnitride 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 components and components in inertial guidance

systems for advanced missiles. These new applications

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

Prior to 1970, the United States was nearly 100% import

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

bertrandite mine opened in Utah that provided a large secure

source of domestic raw material supply (Petkof, 1985).

During most of the 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 induction furnaces that consume large quantities of

energy. Also, because of the toxic nature of beryllium, the

industry must maintain careful control over the quantity of

beryllium dust and fumes in the workplace. Under the Clean

Air Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issues

standards for certain hazardous air pollutants, including

beryllium, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration issues standards for airborne beryllium particles. To

comply with these standards, plants are required to install and

maintain pollution control equipment. Beryllium dust and

fumes have been recognized as the cause of beryllosis, a

serious chronic lung disease. Although the exact cause of the

disease is uncertain, the problem appears to be controlled

when established preventative measures are exercised. In

beryllium-processingplants, harmful effects are prevented by

maintaining clean workplaces; requiring the use of safety

equipment, such as personal respirators; collection of dust,

fumes, and mists at the source of deposition in dust collectors;

medical programs; and other procedures to provide safe

working conditions (Rossman, Preuss, 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 domestic beryllium producers

discontinued beryllium metal production, leaving the price of

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

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

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

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

$317 per pound. The quoted price for berylliummetalpowder

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 berylliumbillets.

The contract was extended through 1992 for a combined total

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

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

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

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

for beryllium metal powder from yearend 1990 to yearend

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

Deliveries of the metal to the NDS were completed in the

second quarter of 1994.

The beryllium metal purchase and beryl ore conversion

came at a time of declining beryllium metal consumption,

caused by reduced spending for strategic defense programs.

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

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

causal event. Beryllium metal currently averages about 10%

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 changed. The sole U.S.

beryllium metal producer, however, continues to 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

applications 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 about $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,Berylliumin1992—Annualreview: U.S. Bureau of

Mines Mineral Industry Surveys, April, 7 p.

———1994,Berylliumin1993—Annualreview: 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.

Defense National Stockpile Center, 1998a, Stockpile accepts

beryllium 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, inMineralsYearbook1978-

79, v. I: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 111-114.

———1985, Beryllium, in Mineral facts and problems: U.S.

Bureau of Mines Bulletin 675, p. 75-82.

Rossman, M.D. , MD, Preuss,O.P.,MD,andPowers,M.B., 1991,

Beryllium—Biomedical and environmental aspects:

Baltimore, MD, Williams & Wilkins, 319 p.

Yearend Average Beryllium Metal Price

(Dollars per pound1)

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

YEAR

DOLLARS

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 reopening
14

Demand for bismuth in the United States wassmall priorto

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

compounds were used to treat such conditions as digestive

disorders, venereal diseases, and burns. Minor amounts of

bismuth were consumed in fusible alloys for fire sprinkler

systems and fuse wire. Bismuth has always been produced

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

controlled by the major producers until the mid-1960’s,

usually reflected the cost of recovery. In World War II,

bismuth, considered to be a strategic and criticalmaterial, 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 pound

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 consumption 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 all categories of

consumption (Wyche, 1976). 

This was followed by 7-year 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

reported 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’ strikes in Peru, one of the largest

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

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

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

domestic consumers were able to compensate for this loss by

obtaining bismuth elsewhere.

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

lower consumption, increased imports, large world stocks,

and dealer reaction to the plan to sell 510 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 increased in 1989 and 1990, which further

increased the supply of bismuth and helped keep the price

near $3.00 per pound. In 1992, the DLA released 91 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 began on the evaluation of

bismuth as a nontoxic replacement for lead in such uses as

ceramic glazes, fishing sinkers, food-processing equipment

(Murray, 1993), free-machining brasses for plumbing

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

waterfowlhunting(Lowry, 1993). During the middle 1990’s,

growth in these areas remained slow in spite of direct or

indirect Government backingof bismuth for lead replacement.

The 1996 Amendments to the 1986 Safe DrinkingWater 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 and Nebraska State authorities on environmental

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

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

the bismuth remaining in the NDS (American Metal Market,

1997). Thus, the United States became completely dependent

on imports for its supply of primary bismuth.

At the end of the decade, total demand increased

moderately as consumption for new uses, especially hunting

and plumbing applications, began to increase. Supply

remained adequate and prices remained low. Owing to low

prices for bismuth, the reopening of the Tasna Mine in

Bolivia, closed since 1980, was delayed. When production

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 emptied: 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 causedby 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 potential:

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

Metal Bulletin, 1982, Bismuth metal: Metal Bulletin Handbook

1982, v. 2, Statistics, p. 87-89.

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

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

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

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

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

toxicity: Design News, v. 49, no. 10, May 17, p. 124-125.
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, in Commodity Data

Summaries: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 16-17.

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

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

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

Wyche, Charlie, 1976, Bismuth, in Minerals Yearbook 1974, v.

I: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 223-227.

Annual Average Bismuth Price1

(Dollars per pound2)

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

1Prices for 99.99%-pure bismuth.

2To 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

YEAR

DOLLARS

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 metal is produced as a byproduct in the recovery of

primary zinc from zinc ores and also from some lead or

complex copper-lead-zinc ores. The feed material for

cadmium production consists of fume and dust that are

collected as flue dust in baghouses during the pyrometallurgical processing of zinc and residues that result from

electrolytic zinc production. The availability of cadmium is,

in most cases, dependent on the amount of zinc produced.

Germany was the only important producer of cadmium until

World War I. Production of cadmium in the United States

began in 1907. By 1917, the United States had become the

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

50 years. During this period, the price of cadmium was
18

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 by 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 pound 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 reflective of supply and

demand.

The price for cadmium in the next several years will

probably be affected by the proposed ban on cadmium 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 zinc 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 effective collection and

recycling of nickel-cadmium batteries: Lyon, France,

OrganisationforEconomicCo-operationandDevelopment,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 pound1

)

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

YEAR

DOLLARS

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

rapidly in the presence of moisture or in dry air at a

temperature above 285/ C. Calcium reacts readily with

water, forming hydrated lime (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 limestone 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 vacuum. 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 greatly 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,Calciumandcalciumalloys,in Kirk-Othmer

encyclopedia of chemical technology (4thed.): New York,

John Wiley & Sons, p. 777-786.
22

Annual Average Calcium Price

(Dollars per pound1)

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 crowns, in quantities of less than 100 pounds, in 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

YEAR

DOLLARS

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 materialpurchased, and/or the source

of 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 cesium metal prices published in the

Yearbooks were for purchases of at least 1 pound of material

and are significantly lower than the pre-1960 prices owing to

discounts 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. Geological 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 tothePenn RareMetals 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

YEAR

DOLLARS

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

YEAR

DOLLARS

1992 dollars

Current dollars

Cr

Chromium

by John F. Papp
26

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

YEAR

DOLLARS

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 established to bring science education to the

mining industry (Weeks, 1968, p. 271-283). The chromite

mineral, comprising primarily chromium, iron, and oxygen,

was subsequently found to be useful as a refractory material.

Chromite was first exploited for the production of pigments

(Gray, 1988) and the manufacture of refractory materials.

Today, the major use of chromium is in the metallurgical

industry to make stainless steel; substantially less chromium

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

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

chromite ore, ferrochromium, and chromium metal. The

major traded chromium commodity is now ferrochromium,

which replaced chromite ore. Chromium metal prices apply

to a relatively small amount of the chromium commodity

materials. To meet the needs of different users of price

information, all three price histories have been included.

An understandingof the structure of the chromium industry

is important to understanding chromium material price

structure. Ferrochromium was originally produced mainly

near stainless steel producers but production hassince moved

to locations in proximity 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 stockpile of chromium commodities for national

security reasons. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in

1991, the Federal Government started to sell its stockpile; the

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 chromium needs in the form of chromite ore

because ferrochromium was domestically produced. As
27

domestic ferrochromium production capacity declined,

imported ferrochromium surpassed chromite ore as the major

commodity source of chromium for the United States.

Markets for 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 by demand in the United States and other

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

chromite ore for chemical production. As a steel-producing

nation, the United Statesimported chromite ore for refractory

and alloy production. Between about 1970 and 1999, the

United States made the transition from producingto importing

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

statistics included 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 available. 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 of material

reported by the 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 and 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, and 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

weighted-average values based on quantity, content, and

customs value of imports as reported in U.S. customs

statistics.

Chromite ore is graded by its chromic oxide (Cr2O3)

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

Commercially traded chromite ore grades range from 35% to

55% Cr2O3. 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% and 65%

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

per pound of contained chromium. Chromium metal is

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

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

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 each 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 also affect material price. When supply does

not meet demand or when stocks appear to be insufficient,

price is expected to increase. Because stainless steel is the

major end use for chromium, world stainless steel production

or anticipated production plays a major role in determining

chromium demand and is, therefore, a major influence on

ferrochromium and chromite ore prices. Strong demand for

chromium from the international stainless steel market

resulted in price increases from 1987 through 1989.

Chromium industry production capacity growth exceeded

stainless steel industry chromium demand growth, which
28

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; and 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 peaks for

ferrochromium and chromite ore were coincident in 1982 and

1989, and ferrochromium price led chromite ore price in

1975-76 and 1995-96. In the first two cases, annual

averaging hides the price change 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, in Lewis, P.A., ed.,

Properties and economics: New York, Wiley-Interscience

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

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

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

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

Mines Information Circular 9411, 94 p.

———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 Surveys, September 27,

27 p.

Toerien, 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 Stock Piling Act during the

period October 1996 through September 1997: U.S.

Department ofDefenseStrategic andCritical MaterialsReport

to the Congress, 43 p.

WarburgDillonRead Securities (SouthAfrica) (Pty) Ltd., 1998,

SouthAfrica, Steel & Allied, Samancor: WarburgDillonRead

Securities (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd., 67 p.

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

elements (7th ed.): Journal of Chemical Education, 896 p.

Chromite Ore Value1

(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 Value1

(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 Value1

(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 anddeclared free-on-boardvalueofU.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

YEAR

DOLLARS

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 criticalmetal 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

alloys; high-speed steels; cemented carbides and diamond

tools; catalysts for the petroleum and chemical industries;

drying agents for paints, varnishes, and inks; ground coatsfor
32

porcelain enamels; pigments; battery electrodes; steel-belted

radial tires; and magnetic recording media. Various forms of

cobalt metal, including briquettes, cathode (electrolytic

cobalt), fines, granules (shot), ingot, powder, and rondelles,

have been produced and marketed. Cobalt prices presented

in the table for 1969 onward are for cobalt cathode, which is

produced by electrowinning. 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 have

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, Canadian, Finnish, and French producers

agreed to control cobalt supply and to maintain a uniform

price. Followingthe War, prices quoted by the BelgianCongo

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 sales 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.

The producer price was renamed the “reference price” in

1994, and since then, most cobalt has been sold at free

market prices.

In the free market, sales 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 metal. The volume of free market sales has varied

over time and from country to country. 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

Zairian producer inventories following 2 years of sales

exceedingproduction, a sharp increase in demand, a reduction

in cobalt allocations by the Zairian producer, limited world

cobalt production capacity, 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 cobalt

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 orsubstituted 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 (Kielty, 1990, p. 2-3, 10).

From late 1986 until 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 cutbacksin 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 unrest 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

markets. 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 component 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 continued 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 at
33

more than $30 per pound in late December 1991/early

January 1992.

During the next 2 years, the free market cobalt price

trended downward to approximately $11 per pound. The

decrease during1992 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 decline, world refined cobalt

production reached a low point in 1993. The U.S.

Government began selling 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, consumersfound waysto take

advantage of the availability and lower cost of cobalt from

these sources.

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

doubled. This price increase reflected a growing concern over

cobalt supply prompted by the following factors: delays by

the African producersin announcing their 1994 pricingpolicy,

consumers’ reduced inventory levels resultingfrom buyingon

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

mining region in Zaire had declared autonomy from the rest

of the country, expectations for reduced production in 1994,

and 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 supply 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 mining or from the processing of cobaltbearing intermediate materials stockpiled during past copper

production.

World cobalt production continued to increase in 1996.

Demand remained 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 decreased 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 higherthan that of the

previous year. In addition, the following were cited as

possible contributing factors to the decreasing prices: weak

demand, particularly from the superalloy sector; reduced

demand because of poor economic conditions in Asia and

elsewhere; consumers buying only as needed, drawing down

inventories, and delayingpurchases while waitingfor 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 production 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 times, 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,inMetals WeekConference,Tucson, AZ,October 25-

26, 1990, Proceedings: New York, Metals Week, 26 p.

———1992, Cobalt review and outlook, in Metals Week

Ferroalloys Conference, Tucson, AZ, November 5-6, 1992,

Proceedings: New York, Metals Week, 22 p.

———1994,Cobalt—An unpredictablemarket: 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 pound1)

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

1To 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

YEAR

DOLLARS

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

YEAR

DOLLARS

1992 dollars

Current dollars

Nb

Columbium (Niobium)

by Larry D. Cunningham
36

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

Columbium 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 columbium until the

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

ferrocolumbium in steel and as columbium carbide in

high-speed cutting tools (Cunningham, 1985a). Acceptable

substitutes, such as molybdenum, tantalum, titanium,

tungsten, and vanadium, are available for some columbium

applications, but substitution may lower performance and/or

cost-effectiveness.

The columbium price is driven by the availability of

columbium mineral feed materials, recycling being an

insignificant source of supply. Thus, the events affecting the

supply of columbium 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-purity 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 columbium oxide from Brazil, ferrocolumbium from Canada, and lesser amounts of columbium

concentrates for processing from various countries. Many of

the applicationsfor columbiumare either directly or indirectly

defense related because of its use in the aerospace,

communications, energy, and transportation industries. Thus,

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

years, various columbium 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 1959

(Cunningham, 1985a, b). The program, which was initiated

to encourage increased production of columbium-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

developingdomestic columbiummineralproduction. The low

grade of the discoveries precluded their development at

current or expected future prices. Termination of the

program was followed by lower market prices, resulting in

reduced production worldwide. Marginal producers, who

could not operate profitably at lower prices, halted

production.

Reshaping of 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 widespread and growing use for columbium in

high-strength low-alloy steels. Until the mid-1960’s, the

world’s needs for columbium were provided for mostly by

columbite concentrates mined in Nigeria; the Nigerian

columbite was produced as a byproduct of tin mining.

Development of pyrochlore deposits in Brazil and Canada

during this period, however, greatly increased columbium

availability (Cunningham, 1985a; Miller, Fantel, and

Buckingham, 1986, p. 8; Crockett and Sutphin, 1993, p. 4-5).

Pyrochlore deposits are mined primarily for columbium, and

columbite 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 adverse 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 concentrates produced in

Brazil and Canada. Pyrochlore became the standard material

for the manufacture of ferrocolumbium for steelmaking.
37

Columbite-tantalite remained as the source material for the

production of columbium oxide used in high-purity

columbium products. As demand increased in the 1970’s,

prices began to escalate for columbium concentrates and

columbium products. With continued strong demand for

columbium in the manufacture of steels and especially highpurity columbium products, the price for columbium

concentrates peaked in 1979. 

In 1980, an important change in columbium supply took

place when plants that produced columbium oxide from

pyrochlore-based feed materials were established in Brazil and

the United States, which resulted in lower prices for

columbiumoxide 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 columbium concentrates, mostly

pyrochlore, accounts for more than 85% of total world

production of columbium. Pyrochlore concentrates, however,

have not been exported from Brazil since 1981. Pyrochlore

concentrates produced in Brazil are processed locally, and

some of the upgraded columbium products are consumed

domestically, with the majority of the products exported. As

the dominant columbium producer/supplier, Brazil has maintained a marketing strategy of stable supply 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 contained 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 than that quoted

for ferrocolumbium, $6.88 per pound of contained

columbium.

In 1998, the leadingBrazilian columbiumproducer 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

response to growing international demand (Metal Bulletin,

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, in Mineral facts and

problems: U.S. Bureau of Mines Bulletin 675, p. 185-196.

———1985b, Tantalum, in 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, Columbium (niobium) and tantalum in

1997—Annual review: U.S. Geological Survey Mineral

Industry Surveys, August, 12 p.

Defense National Stockpile 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 StockpileCenter news release,

December 10, 1 p.

Jones, T.S., 1981, Columbium and tantalum, in Minerals

Yearbook 1980, v. I: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 249-260.

Metal Bulletin, 1998,CBMMexpandstomaintainferro-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 appraisal: 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 pentoxide1)

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) Price1

(Dollars per pound contained columbium2)

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

YEAR

CENTS

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 1988
40

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 refined 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 integrated 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 refined copper is

produced from a multistage process, beginning with the

mining and concentrating of ores, and followed by smelting

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

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 processing have their own

independent markets and are traded globally. Each product

has its own pricing procedure that is linked, for the most part,

to its copper content and the market price for refined copper.

For example, copper concentrates, which contain between

20% and 35% copper, are purchased on the basis of the

refined copper market value of their recoverable copper

content, with charges taken for smelting and refining.

Penalties may be assessed by the smelter/refinerfor unwanted

contaminants or low grade, and credits may be given for

recoverable byproducts. Even though the smelting and

refining charges are driven by processing cost factors, they

may fluctuate significantly accordingto 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

processingcosts, market conditions for each type ofscrap 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 changing at least quarterly. The

producer price system offered stability and served the

interests of both the producer and the consumer. Producer

prices tended to be 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 producer 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.

Periods of surplus supply, which occurred from 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 average 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 times 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 result 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

COMEX-based pricing, producers and consumers have

increasingly used futures markets to hedge their sales and

purchases.

Strike periods that occur with expiration of labor contracts
41

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 with a period of high international demand

occasioned by the Vietnam war and an unusually high period

of worldwide economic growth. Government releases of

stockpile material were used to alleviate shortages duringeach

of these incidents, with the exception of the 1980 strike,

which took place during 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 period. 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 bottleneck that developed in

late 1991 (Jolly, 1991, p. 47).

Governments’ interventions in economic policies or directly

in copper markets have had significant effects on copper

prices. The U.S. Government has taken action during periods

of war and national emergency to control prices and levy

tariffs, to impose export quotas, to provide price supports,

lend monies for expansion and exploration, to guarantee

production purchases, and to buy and sell for the national

stockpile. Most of these strategies , including the use of price

controls (1971-74) were applied most recently during the

Vietnam War. Beginning in the middle 1960’s with the

nationalization of copper mines in Chile, the Democratic

Republic of the Congo (formerly Zaire) and Zambia, the

world'sprivate copper-miningindustry (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 unsuccessfully 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 countriesto

90% of normal production and by reducing CIPEC-country

copper exports by 15% was not fully observed and was

unsuccessful in stimulating a price rise (Mikesell, 1979, p.

187-215).

Although the price of copper has been influenced by

business cycles, government policy, and technological

changes, production costs and the balance 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, world mine production and capacity were again

reaching peak levels. The resulting oversupply depressed

prices for 5 years and resulted in the initialshutdown 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 during1987 was delayed by changingbusiness 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 inventories began to rise in 1990 with the

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

continued to rise through most of 1993. Though relatively

high by historicalstandards, copper prices declined as copper

inventories rose. In 1992, a short-lived dip in inventories that

was attributed to a bottleneck in smelter capacity caused

prices to spike upward for several months before resuming

their downward trend. Despite rising 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 large market participants. Prices plummeted in

September when the LME intervened to limit price

backwardation (forward 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; environmentalrestrictions

made investment in North America less attractive; and

companies sought to protect themselves from future

downturns by investing in lower cost production. An

anticipated surplus in production was delayed, in part, by

higher-than-expected consumption and by production

disruptions, including political strife in Africa, 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 lostseveralbillion dollars on unauthorized copper trades
42

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 fell to the lowest level

since the Great Depression of the 1930’s.

References Cited

Jolly, J.L., 1991, Copper, in Metal prices in the United States

through 1991: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 45-52.

Mikesell,R.F.,1979,The worldcopper industry: Baltimore, MD,

Johns Hopkins University Press, 393 p.

Platt’s Metals Week, 1996, Sumitomo copper position raises

market anxiety: Platt’s Metals Week, v. 67, no. 25, June 7, p.

1.

Annual Average U.S. Producer Copper Price

(Cents per pound1)

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

YEAR

DOLLARS

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 devices, 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 purposes; small quantities were used as a

specializedmirror 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 recovered primarily as a byproduct from the

refining of bauxite to alumina. As a byproduct metal, price

trends for gallium are not significantly influenced by

macroeconomic factors; rather, they are driven by gallium

supply and demand relations. The large drop in prices in the

early 1960’s was principally because of technologic

improvements in galliumrecovery 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.

Introduction 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 applications, 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 gallium 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 have been developed and

have made inroads into low-volume applications, such as

sophisticated military warfare systems and supercomputers.

Because these are low-volume applications and the quantity

of gallium used per unit produced is small, gallium’s raw

material cost is not a significant factor in the item’s final cost.

The demand for gallium, therefore, has not increased to a

level that cannot be met by existing supplies, and there has

been no incentive to increase gallium’s price. Although

gallium prices have decreased as its uses have grown, it is still

used in small quantities compared withmany other metals and

only in specialized applications where its properties are

crucial.

Most gallium prices are directly negotiated between the

producer and consumer, with larger volume consumers able

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

may not represent actual selling prices; in most cases, they

provide an indication of the trend of gallium prices.

References Cited

Beja, Maurice, 1951, Method of extracting gallium oxide from

aluminous substances: U.S. Patent 2,574,008, 5 p.

Brodsky, M.H., 1990, Progress in gallium arsenide semiconductors: Scientific American, v. 262, no. 2, p. 68-75.

de laBreteque,Pierre, 1957, Method of recovering gallium from

an alkali aluminate lye: U.S. Patent 2,793,179, 6 p.

Annual Average Gallium Price1

(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

YEAR

DOLLARS

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 crystalstructure as diamond; and is brittle, like glass. It

is a semiconductor, with electrical properties between those of

a metal and an insulator. Germanium and its compounds

remained almost entirely items of interest for research until

World War II, although the use of germanium dioxide in

treating anemia was reported in 1922 (Gregory, 1942).

With the invention and development of the crystal diode

and the transistor, in the 1940’s, germanium became an
46

important industrial material (Bardeen and Brattain, 1948).

Prior to 1945, the amount of germanium produced was very

small, a few hundred pounds per year. From 1945 to 1949,

the demand for electronic uses resulted in substantial growth

of the germanium industry and higher prices for the metal.

After 1953, germanium prices started to decline

progressively and, by 1966, bottomed out at $175 per

kilogram of metal, the lowest price ever quoted. This price

prevailed for the next 2 years, rose in 1969, and rose again in

1970 because of inflationary trends in the market. Prices

remained constant at $293 per kilogram from 1971 through

1976.

The invention and development of the germaniumtransistor

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,

demand for germanium in transistors, diodes, and rectifiers

declined, owing mainly to the increasing use of

electronic-grade silicon as a replacement. The reduced

demand for germanium in the electronic field was offset,

however, by a dramatic increases in demand in fiber optics

communication networks (Roskill'sLetter from Japan, 1997),

in infrared night vision systems (MetalBulletin 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 price remained lower than the published

producer price for germanium metal, owing to the

development of a worldwide excess of supply relative to

demand.

Germanium was designated a strategic and criticalmaterial

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

1984 with an initial goal of 30,000 kilograms of germanium

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

established on the basis of U.S. Department of Defense

estimates for actual emergency conditions of mobilization. In

1991, the goal was adjusted downwards to 68,000 kilograms.

In 1995, the Defense Logistics Agency, which 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).

Starting in 1995, the producer price rose again and

fluctuated around $1,500 per kilogram. It reached $2,000 per

kilogram in 1996. The higher price levels were 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,July15,

p. 230-31.

Gregory, T.C., 1942, Germanium, in The condensed chemical

dictionary: New York, Reinhold, p. 320.

Metal Bulletin, 1975, Minor, precious metals—Germanium:

Metal Bulletin, no. 5971, March 4, p. 21.

———1995,Germanium dioxide prices continue to firm: Metal

Bulletin, no. 7982, May 25, p. 7.

Roskill’s Letter From Japan, 1997, Germanium—Growth in

demand ledby the use of high-purity germanium tetrachloride

inoptical fibres: Roskill’s Letter From Japan, no. 256, August,

p. 2-6.

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

materialsreport 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

YEAR

DOLLARS

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. hostages 
50

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 without 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,reachingthe 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 gathered momentum less than 15

years later. 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

market 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 officialmonetary 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

price, 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 August 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 Rights (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 prohibition on the holding of gold by private

citizens, and effective December 31, 1974, the prohibition

was repealed (West, 1976, p. 603).

Gold occupies a unique position among the world’s

commodities; it is an internationally traded commodity and a

long-established, universally acceptable storehouse of value,

considered by many people worldwide to be superior to fiat

paper currencies with fleeting longevity or fluctuating

unpredictable value. It has been said many times that gold is

“forever”; its high intrinsic and monetary value usually

dictates that, in time, most of it will be recycled to serve

again. Because of its historically high value, much of the gold

mined throughout history is still in circulation in one form or

another (Lucas, 1993, p. 505).

As a consequence of the dual roles played by gold, as

commodity and as money, its price cannot be viewed as one

would view the price of other goods or services in a free

market. Gold also cannot be viewed strictly from the

standpoint of the U.S. market alone because international

political and 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. 

During1969 and 1970 the United States experienced a mild

recession, while the Republic of South Africa was permitted

to sell gold to the IMF at $35 per 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% per exchange agreements reached during the

Smithsonian Accords in Washington, 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 monetary
51

policy changes made by the European Economic Community

and by restricted supplies of newly mined gold (West, 1974,

p. 567).

In 1973, the gold market was influenced by a weakening

and devaluation of the U.S. dollar, lowered confidence in

currency values, higher inflation rates, unsettled world trade,

and, for the third consecutive year, lower mine production.

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

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 inflation, 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 capitalfor 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 theBureau of the Mint and sold

by the American Revolution Bicentennial Administration

(West and Butterman, 1978, p. 591).

The world economy was stagnant in 1977. Limited

successin controlling inflation led to higher gold prices, which

benefitted the IMF auctions that continued throughout the

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

p. 428).

IMF auctions continued during 1978, and the Treasury

resumed gold stock selling (Butterman, 1980, p. 428).

Middle-East oil-producing countries and investors began

purchasing gold with their eroding dollar assets.

Economic conditions worsened during the next 3 years.

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 tradingcontributed 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 officialsourcesincreased.

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

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

favorable market outlook contributed to increases in demand

for gold-bearing fabricated products (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 withdrawalof 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 expectations,

increasingU.S. dollarstrength, as well as improved U.S. trade

results (Lucas, 1989, p. 64-65). 

Officialsector 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 other financial assets and a setback in the U.S. stock

markets in mid-October (Gold Fields Mineral Services

Limited, 1990, p. 8).

The rise in Japanese interest rates in 1990 provided

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

have sold significant amounts of gold for hard currency. The

Chinese sold out of equity swap agreements that were

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

result of the Persian Gulf War and the recession (Gold Fields

Mineral Services Limited, 1991, p. 8-9).

The brief multination conflict that started in 1991 in the

Persian Gulf did little to affect the perception of moderating

politicalstability 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 of
52

the Middle East and Asia, 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 price lacked

direction and volatility. Hoarding of gold continued to be

reduced, asinvestors deserted the market (Roskill Information

Services Ltd., 1995, p. i).

The average dollar price of gold remained almost

unchanged between 1994 and 1996. Late in the fourth

quarter of 1996, the Dutch Government provided a key

catalyst by selling one-third of its reserves (Gold Fields

Mineral Services Limited, 1997, p. 5). Fears that other

central banks might sell their gold reserves followed (CRU

International Ltd., 1996, p. 19).

During 1997 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 Industries Bulletin, v. 2, no. 6,

November, p. 10.

CRU International Ltd., 1996, Gold: CRU International 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,Gold1991:[London],GoldFields Mineral Services

Limited, 64 p.

———1992,Gold1992:[London], Gold Fields Mineral Services

Limited, 64 p. 

———1997, Gold 1997: [London], Gold Fields Mineral Services

Limited, 71 p. 

———1998,Gold1998:[London],GoldFields Mineral 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 Yearbook1982,v.I: U.S. Bureau

of Mines, p. 369-396.

———1984,Gold, in Minerals Yearbook1983,v.I: U.S. Bureau

of Mines, p. 385-411.

———1985,Gold, in Minerals Yearbook1984,v.I: U.S. Bureau

of Mines, p. 405-435.

———1988,Gold, in Minerals Yearbook1986,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 Yearbook1989,v.I: U.S. Bureau

of Mines, p. 455-482.

———1993,Gold, in Minerals Yearbook1990,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, in 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 Yearbook1972,v.I: U.S. Bureau

of Mines, p. 567-588.

———1975,Gold, in Minerals Yearbook1973,v.I: U.S. Bureau

of Mines, p. 557-581.

———1976,Gold, in Minerals Yearbook1974,v.I: U.S. Bureau

of Mines, p. 603-626.

———1977,Gold, in Minerals Yearbook1975,v.I: U.S. Bureau

of Mines, p. 669-696.

West, J.M., and Butterman, W.C., 1978, Gold, in Minerals

Yearbook 1976, v. I: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 591-615.
53

Annual Average Gold Price1

(Dollars per troy ounce2)

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

YEAR

DOLLARS

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 later by using the crystal bar

process—hafnium tetrachloride passed over a tungsten

filament (van Arkel and de Boer, 1925). Hafnium and

zirconium occur together in the ore mineral zircon. Until the

1940’s, fractional crystallization of zirconium-hafnium

compounds was used to produce limited quantities of hafnium

oxide and metal powder. In 1948, hafnium metal powder was

quoted at $32 per gram ($32,000 per kilogram). Because of

the high costs associated with this technique, a 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 extraction technique to remove hafnium from

zirconium; technology that had grown out of the Manhattan

Project (Powell, 1961). Commercial production of hafnium
56

arose from the need to produce hafnium-free zirconium metal

for use in nuclear reactors. In 1950, a decision was made to

use zirconium in the prototype land-based Nautilus nuclear

reactor for future use in submarines (Wilson and Staehle,

1960, p. 1). In 1951, hafnium was selected as the material to

be used in the reactor’s control rods.

Hafnium was an expensive laboratory metal in 1945 when

development work on an improved 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 severalkilograms 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 availability coincided with the

expiration of U.S. Department of Defense contracts for

nuclear reactors in 1962. The price remained stable at about

$165 per kilogram ($75 per pound) for 15 years, and the

continued availability of the metal resulted from the growth

and development of the commercial nuclear industry.

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., andLillie,D.W., 1955,Zirconium

and its applications to nuclear reactors, chap. 1 of Lustman,B.,

and Kerze, F., Jr., eds., The metallurgy of zirconium: New

York, McGraw-Hill, p. 1-18.

Kroll, W.J., 1937, The formation of titanium and zirconium:

Zeitschrift für Anorganishe undAllgemeine 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., Schlechten, A.W., Carmody, W.R., Yerkes, L.A.,

Holmes, H.P., and Gilbert,H.L., 1947,Recent progress in the

metallurgy of malleable zirconium: Transcripts of the

Electrochemistry Society, v. 92, p. 99-113.

Kroll, W.J., Anderson, C.T., Holmes, H.P., Yerkes, L.A., and

Gilbert, H.L., 1948, Large scale laboratory production of

ductile zirconium: Transcripts of the Electrochemistry

Society, v. 94, p. 1-20.

Powell, J.E., 1961, Separation of rare earths by ion exchange,

chap. 5 of Spedding, F.H., and Daane, A.H., eds., The rare

earths: New York, John Wiley & Sons, p. 55-73. 

Smith, E.W., and Stephens, W.W., 1960, Hafnium reduction

process, chap. 3 of Thomas, D.E., and Hayes, E.T., eds., The

metallurgy of hafnium: U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, p.

83-106.

van Arkel, A.E., and de Boer, J.H., 1925, Preparation of pure

titanium, zirconium, hafnium, and thorium metal: Zeitschrift

für Anorganische und Allgemeine Chemie,v. 148, p. 345-350.

Wilson,W.H.,andStaehle,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 kilogram1)

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

YEAR

DOLLARS

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

entirely for experimentalpurposes, 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, prices were usually determined

through individual negotiations between the producer and

consumer (Ludwick, 1959, p. 9).

The first large-scale application for indium was as a coating

for bearings in high-performance aircraft engines during

World War II (Slattery, 1995, p. 157). Indium increased

hardness and helped prevent seizure and corrosion of the

bearings. After the war, production gradually increased as

new uses were found in fusible alloys, solders, and

electronics. A producer price for indium was first established

by the ICA in 1945, and it remained at the same levelthrough

1963.

During the period from 1973 through 1980, demand

increased, especially for use in nuclear controlrods, 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 price reaching $20 per

troy ounce during 1980, when the annual average price was

$17. To increase supply, world producers expanded production capacities.

Orders for nuclear control rods dropped when the rate of

nuclear power expansion decreased in the United States

following the Three Mile Island accident in 1979. Increased

production led to an oversupply during the recessions of the

early 1980’s. By 1982, the price had plummeted to less than

$3 per troy ounce (annual average was $3.19). In 1988, in

response to growing demand, especially in the Japanese

electronics industry, it climbed to nearly $10 per troy ounce.

In the middle and late 1980’s, the development of indium

phosphide semiconductors and indium-tin-oxide thin filmsfor

LCD’s aroused much interest. By 1992, the thin-film

application had become the largest end use (Jasinski, 1993).

In 1989, indium was included in the list of materials to be

added to the NDS (Schmitt, 1989). The original stockpile

goal was 42 metric tons; this was reduced to 7.7 tons in 1992.

During that same year, the Defense Logistics Agency,

manager of the NDS, began purchasing indium. The NDS

had acquired its highest level, 1.56 tons of indium, by 1994.

According to the NDS Annual Materials Plan for 1996,

indium was to be eliminated from the stockpile, but sales

would be limited to 1.1 metric tons per year (American Metal

Market, 1997). Slightly more than this amount was sold in

1997, leaving the inventory at 0.44 ton, which was sold in

December 1998.

In 1995, a tightsupply 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 low (Roskill Information Services

Ltd., 1996, p. 34). This dramatic rise-and-fall is hidden in the

annual average statistics, which indicate a drop of only $0.20

from 1995 to 1996.

In 1998, indium demand 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 Market, 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, occurrence, 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—Pricesmayfall:Roskill’s LetterfromJapan,

no. 270, October, p. 2.

Schmitt,Bill,1989,Pentagonreport urgesstockpiling of indium,

rhodium, andruthenium:AmericanMetal Market,v. 97,no.78,

April 21, p. 1. 

Slattery, J.A., 1995, Indium and indium compounds, in KirkOthmer encyclopedia of chemical technology (4th ed.): New

York, John Wiley, v. 14, p. 155-160.

Weeks, R.A., 1973, Gallium, germanium, and indium, in Brobst,

D.A., and Pratt, W.P., eds., United States mineral resources:

U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 820, p. 237-246.
59

Annual Average Indium Price1

(Dollars per troy ounce2)

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.

 2To 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

YEAR

DOLLARS

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

alloysthat contain too much carbon to be formable by forging

or rolling. The term “steel” refers to an alloy of iron that is

malleable in some temperature ranges and contains

manganese, carbon, and often other alloying elements.

Hundreds of individualalloy specifications known as “grades”

have been developed to produce combinations of strength,

ductility, hardness, toughness, magnetic permeability, and

corrosion resistance to meet the need of modern consumers.

The ability of steel to be permanently deformed by plastic

working allows it to be formed into many shapes and sizes
62

(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 price 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 transportation 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 adjustment 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, however, there is a provision for calculating the

weight of a shipment so that a customer is required to pay

only for the theoretical weight of the product rather than the

actual weight, which normally is more than the theoretical

weight because of allowable manufacturing variations.

Discountsfrom 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 movement 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

War 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 price escalation as energy costs of

steel companies increased rapidly and inflation dominated the

economy. Wages of steel industry workers were automatically increased because of inflation protection clauses in

their union contracts. Price increases were necessary to keep

pace with rapidly escalating costs. From 1971-through 1974,

price controls were instituted in an attempt to halt price

inflation, but were abandoned when they proved ineffective

and administratively infeasible.

During the early 1970’s, a new approach to steelmaking

gained prominence that caused record highs in steel

production (1973) and scrap consumption (1974). Small steel

plants were erected to produce simple products such as hotrolled bars of steel. The first plants began production in

1965. These new plants, called minimills, did not have blast

furnaces to process iron ore, but instead modern electric

furnaces and continuous casters were used to melt ferrous

scrap and cast the raw steel into products at the lowest

possible cost. Competition with blast-furnace-based steel

mills increased as thin-slab continuous casting equipment was

adopted, first in 1989, to produce products at thinner gauges

with ever improving quality at increasingly lower costs

(American Metal Market, 1997; 33 Metal Producing, 1998).

Minimills have been able to capture a significant share of the

market by setting prices that the previously dominant steel

companies were unable to match.

One of the relatively simple products that the minimill

companies have come to dominate is hot-rolled steel bar.

Discountsfrom 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 millprice and began

to report the quoted prices of the minimills, which were more

representative of market transaction prices. This change was

marked by the 29 percent drop in the quoted price, to $17.12.

The first half of the 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

ferrousscrap reached record highs in 1990, but there was still

a trade deficit. By 1997, the American Iron and Steel

Institute (AISI) reported an indirect steel-trade surplus of 1.1

millionmetric 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

semifinished steel increased significantly in 1993; these

imports were needed to make up for the domestic shortage of

hot metal capacity in order to satisfy the U.S. market demand

for finished steel mill products. Domestic producers were

also unable to keep up with demand for finished steel

products. An unfavorable currency exchange rate made

foreign steel prices much more competitive.

A financial crisis began in Asia in 1997 when Thailand

devalued its currency (Garino, 1999). Prospering economies

in China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, the Republic of
63

Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, and Thailand were

seriously weakened. Steel consumption began to decline in

these countries as they imported less steel and canceled some

new steel production projects. Generally, significant

production decreases were not feasible because sales were

needed to repay loans granted by the International Monetary

Fund to support the economies of these 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

fallingworld 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 Institute, 1998, AISI issues report on

1997 U.S. indirect steel trade—First surplus achieved in 14

years of tracking: Washington, D.C., American Iron and Steel

Institute press release, April 15, 2 p.

American Metal Market, 1997, Minis playing hot band hand:

American Metal Market, v. 105, no. 27, February 7, p. 1.

Becker, George, 1998, Steel import woes have deep roots:

American Metal Market, v. 106, no. 208, October 29, p. 10.

Campbell, R.F., 1948, The history of basic metals price control

in World War II: NewYork, 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 Producing, 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 pounds1)

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

YEAR

DOLLARS

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

industrialscrap) while fabricating new iron and steel products

and objects discarded because of obsolescence (obsolete

scrap). Ferrous scrap recycling is a complex industry that is

dependent on the vigor of the two major consumers of

scrap—steel mills and ferrous foundries. Thousands of scrap

facilities employ tens of thousands of people to collect,

process, and distribute scrap in several regional U.S. markets

and the international export market.

In a free-market economy when Government price controls

are not in effect, scrap prices react quickly to changes in

supply and, 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 can
66

hold back some scrap from mills and foundries when prices

are below their costs to purchase and process it. Scrap

generated by industrial plants, however, must be disposed of

each month to the highest bidder to make room for more

scrap. Prices are also influenced by technological changes in

steel mills and foundries, processing and upgrading to desired

physical and chemical qualities, the use of scrap substitutes,

environmental controls and other Government laws and

regulations, and 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 industrialdemand. Of particular interest

is the No. 1 Heavy Melting Steel (No. 1) composite price of

three citiesCChicago, IL, Philadelphia, PA, and Pittsburgh,

PACwhich has been recorded 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 economic

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 from 1931 to 1933.

During World Wars I and II, demand increased to the point

that the Government adopted price controls to halt scrap price

inflation (Campbell, 1948). The price of No. 1 nearly tripled

as a result of high demand during World War II. The

Government also adopted price controls during the Korean

conflict.

During the early 1970’s, a new approach to steelmaking

gained prominence, which caused record highs in steel

production (1973) and scrap consumption (1974). New,

comparatively 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 furnaces and continuous

casters were used to melt ferrous scrap and to cast the raw

steel into products at the lowest possible cost (Iron and

Steelmaker, 1998). Minimills have been able to capture a

significant share of the market by setting prices that the

previously dominant steel companies were unable to match.

By 1990, U.S. exports and imports of ferrous scrap to feed

minimills built in the United States and abroad reached record

highs.

Ferrous scrap prices declined significantly during 1991 as

domestic and world demand for scrap decreased. Domestic

demand began to increase during 1992, and world demand

remained weak. The period from 1993 to the first half of

1997 was one of strengthening demand for ferrous scrap and

rising prices. Developing countries in Asia, Eastern Europe,

and Latin America experienced significant economic growth.

Minimill capacity increased worldwide, and integrated steel

mills increased efficiency and scrap usage.

A financial crisis began in Asia in 1997 when Thailand

devalued its currency. Prospering economies in China, Hong

Kong, Indonesia, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia,

Singapore, Taiwan, and Thailand were seriously weakened.

Asian ferrous scrap purchases decreased, and prices of scrap

declined, which adversely affected the 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 industry faces uncertain

economic future: Iron and Steelmaker, v. 25, no.12,

December, p. 25-26.

Iron and Steelmaker, 1998, I&SM continuous caster roundup:

Iron and Steelmaker, v. 25, no. 11, p. 14-31.
67

Annual Average U.S. Steel Scrap Price1

(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 inchandmore 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

YEAR

DOLLARS

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

YEAR

DOLLARS

1992 dollars

Current dollars

Fe

Iron Ore

by William S. Kirk
70

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, manganese, 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 make steel in a BOF. In the EAF

process, iron and steelscrap and often direct reduced iron are

melted to produce steel.

Almost all (98%) iron ore is used to make iron and steelso

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 costs 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

productivity. The chemical constituents that affect the

productivity of a blast furnace are iron content, levels of the

undesirable substances silica and alumina, moisture and

impurities, and levels of the desirable substances limestone

and dolomite.

The forms that affect blast furnace productivity—fines

(fine ores), lump, and pellets—are also the primary market

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 measuringfrom 9.55 to

16.0 millimeters (3/8-5/8 inch).

Although fines and lump ores cost about the same to

produce, 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 steelmilloperator. 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 steelmaker, 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 content and good structure is desirable for

increasing productivity in a blast furnace, preference may be

given to a lower quality ore if the price is low enough to

compensate for its less favorable characteristics. 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 blast 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 was 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 paid
71

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 American iron ore industry was

growing, as it had for 25 years. Pellet capacity expanded

steadily from its first commercialization in 1955 to a peak

capacity of 127 million metric tons in 1980. 

In 1982, major structural changes occurred in the domestic

iron ore industry, one of which was the development of a

U.S. spot market for pellets. Most spot sales are individually

negotiated, one-time contracts made directly between buyer

and seller. The spot market led to the beginning of price

competition and a winding down of the 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 prices to make

domestic ore competitive with imported material. This meant

that the industry had to lower production costs to stay in

business, which was done by greatly improving labor

productivity, reducing wages, negotiating lower cost power

contracts and royalty agreements, pressingsuppliersto reduce

prices for materials, lobbying legislators 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 ofsteel mill ownership of iron ore mines to

about 63%, has grown stronger.

Exported iron ore is traded 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 lengthy negotiations

between Brazilian iron ore producers and 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 31st

.

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 oversupply.

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 sixth 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 financial crisis

(Hogan, 1999). With the spread of the Asian economic

recession, steel demand and export opportunities were

curtailed within the 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 prospectsfor the industry,1985-95:WorldBank

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,andKakela,P.J.,1996,NorthAmerican

iron ore industry—Opportunities and threats: PaineWebber

World Steel Dynamics Core Report, January, variously

paginated.
72

Annual Brazilian Iron Ore Pellet Price1

(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 Price1

(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

YEAR

DOLLARS

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 buildingmaterials, water pipes, and

pigments for glazing. The castles and cathedrals of Europe

contain considerable quantities of lead in roofs, windows,

pipes, and decorative fixtures (Shea, 1996, p. 1). In the

United States, lead was first mined in Virginia in 1621.

During the colonial period, mining was carried out in New

York, North Carolina, and several New England States. By

the late 1860's, most of the mine production of lead came

from the lower and upper Mississippi Valley regions. A

westward expansion of mining began soon thereafter. Many

gold and silver mines were developed, some of which

contained significant concentrations of lead. In addition, the
74

MissouriLead Belt, in southeastern Missouri, was developed,

as well as the Tri-State Lead District, which included Kansas,

Missouriand 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 current 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 prolonged strike (Hofman, 1918, p. 1-6;

Howe, 1980, p. 1-5).

In conjunction with the mining of lead, numerous primary

lead smelters and refineries have been operated in the United

States since primary lead production was first recorded in

1825. By 1887, annual production of primary refined lead

had reached 132,000 metric tons 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, production 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 lead 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 stability was due, in

part, to the enactment of Public Law 87-374, the Lead and

Zinc Mining Stabilization Program, in 1961. The program,

which remained in effect through 1969, authorized payments

to qualified miners when the market price of lead dropped

below $0.145 per pound. In the early 1970’s, movement in

the price of lead was restrained by anti-inflation price

controls.With the lifting of price controls in December 1973,

the price of lead quickly increased, reaching a historic high in

1979 during the post-Vietnam War economic boom. 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-elastic

commodity. Its significant uses in any given era have not

depended on price and, for the most part, other metals cannot

substitute for lead in these cases. Prior to the early 1900’s,

uses of lead were primarily for shot, bullets, water lines and

pipes, pewter, brass, glazes, paints or other protective

coatings, burial vault liners, and leaded glass or crystal. With

the advent of the electrical age and communications

accelerated by technological developments in World War I,

cable lead and solders became preeminent. With the growth

in production of public and private motorized vehicles and the

associated use of starting-lighting-ignition (SLI) lead-acid

storage batteries and terne metal for gas tanks after World

War I, demand for lead increased. In addition to their

continued use in SLI applications, new uses of storage

batteries have includedmotive 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

equipment for hospitals, computer and telecommunications

networks, and load-leveling equipment for commercial

electrical power systems. Most of these uses continued to

expand with the population and the national economy, and

totaldemand accelerated further with electronic developments

(primarily television and video display tubes) and demand for

leaded gasoline after World War II, peaking between 1977

and 1979. With the near phaseout of lead in gasoline, paints,

solders, and water systems, and the imposition of expensive

environmental production controls, the industry experienced

hard times between 1982 and 1986. However, the industry

made a dramatic recovery by the late 1980’s, owing to

massive retrenchment in the primary and secondary producing

sectors with attendant cost reductions, and to expansion in

demand for industrial-type battery systems, and record SLI

battery shipments. Growth in the battery industry continued

into the 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,ViburnumTrend, Missouri—The geology and

ore deposits of selectedmines:Rolla,MissouriDepartment of

Natural Resources Report of Investigation 58, 56 p.

Shea, E.E., 1996, Lead regulation handbook: Rockville, MD,

Government Institutes, Inc., 240 p.
75

Annual Average Lead Price

(Dollars per pound1)

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

YEAR

DOLLARS

1992 dollars

Current dollars

Li

Lithium

by Joyce A. Ober

Production of lithium minerals was first reported in the

United States in 1898. Spodumene and amblygonite from

California and South Dakota were exported for conversion to

lithium chemicals. It was not until about 1916, during World

War I, that lithium chemical production began in the United

States (Schaller, 1917). Shortly after that, the United States

became the largest producer of lithiumminerals 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 lithium 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 States 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

few lithium chemicals require lithium metal for their

production, the metal used to produce the chemicals is

produced and converted by the same company and so is not

sold and does not enter the market or affect the prices of

commercial lithium metal products (Lithium Corporation of

America, 1985, p. 4). The changes in lithium metal prices

appear to be independent of any significant events. Although

lithium metal prices were first reported in trade publicationsin

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 pricesremained flat in terms of

current dollars; in terms of constant dollars, however, prices

decreased. The potential use of lithium in batteries for
78

electric vehicles was first discussed in the Minerals Yearbook

in 1972 (Wininger, 1972). The downward trend in lithium

metal prices reversed in 1974. At about the same time,

research efforts increased for identifying aluminum lithium

alloys for use in aerospace applications. Increased demand

for lithium in batteries and alloys resulted in steadily

increasing lithium metal prices 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 producers, 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 lithium metal. The

requirement for lithium metal for those batteries may grow

more slowly as battery makerssearch for the optimum battery

chemistry, balancing energy density, cost, and safety.

References Cited

Arundale, J.C., and Mensch, F.B., 1952, Lithium, in Minerals

Yearbook 1952, v. I: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 650-659.

Broadhurst, S.D., 1956, Lithium resources of North Carolina:

NorthCarolina Department of Conservationand Development

Information Circular 15, 37 p.

FMC Corp., 1999, FMC annual report 1998: FMC Corp., 56 p.

Foote Prints, 1984,Newlithium frontier in Chile: Foote Prints,

v. 47, no. 1, p. 2-14.

Harben, P.W., and Edwards, G.H., 1997, The global lithium

industry—A portrait of rapidflux: JOM, v. 49, no. 6, p. 21-22,

68.

Lithium Corporation of America, 1985, Lithium: Lithium

Corporation of America company report, 18 p.

Minsal S.A., 1996, First lithium carbonate precipitation at

Minsal:Santiago,Chile,Minsal S.A. pressrelease,October 30,

1 p.

Quan,C.K., 1976,Lithium,inMineralsYearbook1976, v.I: U.S.

Bureau of Mines, p. 767-781.

Schaller, W.T., 1917, Lithium minerals in 1916, in Mineral

resources of the United States 1916: U.S. Geological Survey,

pt. 2, p. 7-17.

Skillings Mining Review, 1968, Foote Mineral Co.’s lithium

operation in Nevada: Skillings Mining Review, v. 57, no. 3,

January 20, p. 10.

Wininger, D.C., 1972,Lithium, in Minerals Yearbook1972, v.I:

U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 1362-1365.

Yearend Average Lithium Price

(Dollars per pound1)

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

YEAR

DOLLARS

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.

Because the large demand was not sustained, prices after

World War II remained constant.

In the 1950’s and early 1960’s magnesiumpricesremained
80

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 magnesium components. From 1964

through 1974, magnesium that had been acquired for the

National Defense Stockpile in the early 1950’s was released

because magnesium was removed from the list of strategic

and critical materials. This stockpile release provided an

additional source of magnesium to supply the growing

demand, which kept prices stable.

In 1974, a combination of increased energy costs, rising

inflation rates, and the surge in use of aluminum beverage

cans, which contain magnesium, led to a dramatic price

increase. The price of magnesium nearly doubled within 1

year. Effects of rapid inflation rates continued to be felt

through the remainder of the 1970’s and into the early

1980’s. As inflation rates decreased, the price of magnesium

stabilized.In 1987 and 1988, magnesiumsuppliestightened as

aluminum consumption increased. Because magnesium’s

principal use was as an alloying addition to aluminum, its use

was directly related to aluminum consumption. In addition,

high-puritymagnesiumalloys were developed as a measure to

increase domestic consumption, particularly in automobiles.

This supply shortage led to increased magnesium prices from

1987 to 1988.

In early 1990, North American production increased with

the opening of a new 40,000-metric-ton-per-year plant in

Canada (Metals Week, 1990). Much of the Canadian

production was imported into the United States, alleviatingthe

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 antidumping duty investigations into imports of

magnesium from Canada in September 1991; as a result of

this action, magnesium imports from Canada essentially

ceased.

With the dissolution of the former Soviet Union at the end

of 1991, however, new suppliers entered the world market.

Because ofstockpiles 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

metal, particularly from Russia. As a result, U.S. prices

dropped significantly in 1992, and a two-tier price system was

established—a U.S. import price and a U.S. transaction price,

which reflected 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 as from China, in mid-1994. This

resulted in a cessation of magnesium imports from these

countries. As domestic demand, mostly for magnesium

components for automotive applications, continued to

increase, the elimination of imported magnesium from

Canada, China, Russia, and Ukraine led to tightU.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 antidumping determinations in

April 1995 for magnesium imports from China, Russia, and

Ukraine (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1995a, b, c).

Because the antidumping duty on Russian magnesium was

established at 0% for all the large producers (as long as they

imported the magnesium through specified importing

companies), magnesiumagain could be imported from Russia,

which had been the United States’ largest magnesium

supplier.

By 1996, the price began to drop as Russian magnesium

returned to the 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 magnesium, and prices dropped

dramatically by yearend 1996. Also in 1996, the United

States imported more magnesium than it exported for the first

time in more than 20 years.

The United States continued to rely on imports of

magnesium to meet its increasing demand, so U.S. prices

continued to weaken slightly through 1998, although they

were returning to more normal levels from the 1995 price

spike. World supply in 1997 and 1998 also increased with

production from a new 27,500-ton-per-year primary

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 SeaMagnesium 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 alloymagnesium

fromCanada—Recissionof investigationand 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—Pure 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 determinationof 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 ofsales 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 pound1)

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

YEAR

DOLLARS

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 inAustralia andMoanda 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 Adoptionof steelmaking technology that significantlyreduces amount of manganese required per tonof 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-grade ore, for which a

lengthy history exists. Manganese is used mostly in the

production of iron and steel. Manganese metal, a minor

component of overall manganese demand, is a brittle

substance that haslittle 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 unit as contained in
84

upgraded form versus that in ore was 2.5:1 for high-carbon

ferromanganese, 2.6:1 for silicomanganese, and 10:1 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 central 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,

physicalcharacter, quantity, and, of considerable significance,

ocean freight rates. Trade journals have published prices

reflectingtheir sense of the market. These journals mainly list

the price for metallurgical-grade ore; price listings for ore used

in battery and so-called chemicalapplications 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 thatstandard, 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

years 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, so 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

content 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 the next year’s shipments. With the decline in

smelting of manganese ferroalloys in the United States,

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

year, 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 four 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 1959, the U.S. Government had stockpiled manganese ore from foreign 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 tons 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 Territory and the Moanda

deposit in Gabon, both of which were developed into large

surface mines (DeYoung, Sutphin, and Cannon, 1984).

During the 1960’s and 1970’s, several major mines based on

the enormous 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 between 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

largerthan 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 between 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 manganese 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 republics; this caused the developing ore

market to disappear within a short period of time. Another

factor was the reactivation of mining or development at

known deposits, as in Western Australia (Chadwick, 1991);

this led to modest additions to supply from what might be

termed “mini-mines,” which nevertheless had a significant

impact on price negotiations.

During the 1990’s, a continuing trend, often on an

international scale, has been the integration of mine

production with ferroalloy production, which hasthe potential

to affect the way ore is priced in the future.

References Cited

Carmichael, Malcolm, 1992, An introduction to manganese, in

Bailey,John, ed., Ironandmanganeseore databook: Worcester

Park, England, Metal Bulletin Books Ltd., p. xli-xlix.

Chadwick, 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 Yearbook1969, 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., Sutphin, 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, Manganese—1997 Annual review: U.S.

Geological Survey Mineral Industry Surveys, August, 14 p.
86

Annual Average 48%-50% Manganese Ore Price1

(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

YEAR

DOLLARS

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 20th 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 period in the late 1920’s of high prices established

and maintained by the Spanish-Italian mercury cartel—

Mercurio Europeo (Pennington, 1959, p. 47). Following

World War II, through the run to its peak price in 1965, the

volatility 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

withmercury have resulted in numerousregulationsrestricting

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 restrictions or floor

prices to stabilize or raise the price at various times during

these three decades, these efforts have failed other than for

very short periods. 

Reference Cited

Pennington, 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 flask1)

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

YEAR

DOLLARS

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

“leadlike” in character; these minerals probably included those

now known as galena, graphite, and molybdenite. This

confusion was resolved in 1778 when the Swedish chemist,

Karl Scheele, demonstrated that molybdenite, the principal

molybdenum mineral, was a discrete mineral sulfide. Four

years later, P.J. Hjelm of Sweden reduced the acid-forming

oxide of the metal by heating it with charcoal, thereby

producing an impure powder of the metal, which he named

“molybdenum.” Various properties of the element and its

compounds were determined during the 19th century, and in

1893, German chemists produced a 96%-pure metal by

reducing calcium molybdate. About this time, impure metal

was reported to have been used experimentally as a substitute

for tungsten in tool steels (Sutulov, 1965, p. 13-16).

Molybdenum-bearing armorplate was produced in France

in 1894; this was the first recorded use of the metal as an

alloying element in steel. Soon thereafter, Henri Mossiam, a
90

French chemist, succeeded in producing a 99.9%- pure metal

by reduction of molybdenum in an electric furnace. Mossiam

then conducted studies to establish the element's atomic

weight and to determine its physical and chemical properties.

These studies stimulated interest in the metal and its

compounds and investigations of commercial applications. 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 considerably expanded the range of metallurgical materials in which molybdenum is a preferred or

essential 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 increasing 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 consumers presumed a shortage would

develop, 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 additional

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,Molybdenum: 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 1912to1955 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

YEAR

DOLLARS

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

YEAR

DOLLARS

1992 dollars

Current dollars

Ni

Nickel

by Peter H. Kuck
92

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 the 17thcentury, German miners had difficulty

processing certain copper sulfide ores because of an

associated mineral that they called kupfernickel, or “Old

Nick’s copper.” The troublesome mineral turned out to be

nickel arsenide and is known today as “niccolite” or

“nickeline.” In 1751, Axel Fredrik Cronstedt isolated a

previously unknown chemical element from niccolite. This

element was subsequently named “nickel.” Nickel was mined

on only a limited scale until the large lateritic nickel deposits

in New Caledonia came into production about 1875 (Boldt

and Queneau, 1967, p. 61-65). The first nickel operations

processed sulfide ores—primarily inCanada, Central Europe,

China, Pennsylvania, and Scandinavia. Nickel had little

economic or industrial significance until 1820 when Michael

Faraday succeeded in making synthetic meteoric iron by

adding nickel to pure iron. Faraday’s alloy was the forerunner of nickelsteel, a family of ferrous alloysthat continues

to play an important role in industrial development. One of

the first uses of nickel steel was for ordnance. Nickel-steel

armor plate was first produced commercially in France in

1885 (Hall, 1954). Competitiveness trials of nickel-steel

armor took place in the United States in 1890-91, and within

a few years, Bethlehem Iron Co. (forerunner of Bethlehem

Steel Corp.) was producing large nickel-steel guns for the

U.S. military (Wharton, 1897). The nickel steels developed

before World War I contained only 1.5% to 4.5% nickel, with

a carbon content of 0.2% to 0.5% (Hess, 1917). Other

important early uses were bridge structures, railroad rails,

axles, ship propeller shafts, and automobile 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-nickel-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

more 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 total 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 American automobile industry. Since 1970, demand for stainless steel in the

United States has grown at a much faster rate than that of

carbon steel but still constitutes only 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 and 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 serious problem, such as on

submarines and surface naval vessels or at food-processingor
93

petroleum-storage facilities. Merchant nickel prices

traditionally spike in wartime when demand far exceeds

supply and frequently rise in times of political unrest and

instability. Producer prices, in contrast, have been frozen 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 the distribution of

nickel, and from 1951 to 1957, all nickel in the United States

was under Government allocation. 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 nickelfor nondefense uses (Davis, 1956).

Shortages continued throughout the conflict despite the

addition of significant new production capacity in Canada and

the United States and the rehabilitation of a number of older

mines and plants. Moreover, the U.S. Government continued

to purchase nickelfor the strategic stockpile after the conflict

ended. As a result, supply did not exceed civilian demand

until the latter part of 1957, 4 years after the armistice. The

producer price of nickel—tracking consumption—began a

gradualrise in 1950 and did not peak until 1957. A period of

oversupply followed, during which quoted producer and

merchant prices for nickel approximately paralleled inflation.

This situation produced a constant-dollar price for the metal

that was fairly stable for more than 10 years.

In 1969, the Canadian nickel, copper, and iron ore

industries were shut down by a prolonged series of labor

strikes. Canada was the dominant nickel-producing country

in the world at the time. Canada’s two largest producers,

Inco 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 and world demand was

restricted by available supply.

The 1969 strikes affected nickel prices in two ways.

Before the strikes, the major producers, led by theCanadians,

controlled the nickel price. The short-term effect was a brief

price increase. The long-term effect was to diminish the

importance of the producer price. Canadian and nonCanadian producers accelerated efforts to expand existing

operations and to bring greenfield projects onstream before

prices weakened. Between 1969 and 1974, new mines and

processing plants were commissioned in Australia, Canada,

the Dominican Republic, and New Caledonia. The increased

capacity resulted in a reduction of the Canadians’share of the

world market and, thus, their influence on prices—a turning

point in the history of nickel marketing.

In the mid-1970’s, Western MiningCorp. Ltd. (now WMC

Ltd. of Southbank, Victoria) sharply expanded 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 North West Shelf to Kalgoorlie, and the advent of new

extraction technologies (Government of Australia, 1999).

Nickel prices, reflecting consumption, rose slightly from

1970 until 1975, when the cumulative effect of opening

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 Vietnam. In

1977, P.T. Inco commissioned its Soroako mining and

smelting complex on the Indonesian island of Sulawesi,

bringingadditionalmetalinto 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 producers. Since 1979, nickel has become a

commodity whose price is driven by world supply and

demand, irrespective of production costs. Many consumers,

as well as producers, were 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 Crisis (1979-82), triggered by the

revolution in Iran, had a major dampening effect on world

consumption of steel and most metals. The resulting

recession that began in summer 1981 caused a marked decline

in nickel consumption. Nickel demand in the Western World

declined about 8% 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 slackening

demand. In 1987, the market suddenly changed direction,

catching producers off guard. The annual average price

surged from itslowest 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 to the nickel market 4 years earlier. Three

factors were primarily responsible for the increase. The first

was a substantial 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 former Soviet Union

(FSU) began gradually increasing nickel shipments to the

West, scrap availability increased worldwide, and world

production of primary nickel increased.

The breakup of the Soviet Union in December 1991

produced massive changes in the Russian economy, one of

which was the partial privatization of the largest nickel

producer in the country, RAO Norilsk Nickel. At the same

time, the downsizing of the FSU military-industrial complex

caused nickel consumption within Russia to plummet. In

1997, Russia consumed only 20,000 metric tons 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 nickelfrom Russia, putting

downward pressure on world prices for primary nickel and

nickel-bearing scrap. Russian exports of stainless steelscrap

and 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

Nickel 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

Voisey’s Bay nickel-copper-cobalt deposit in northeastern

Labrador (Inco Limited, 1999, p. 20-21). In December 1997,

Inco submitted a comprehensive environmental impact

statement 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

environmentalreview 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 stakeholders. The

development of the deposit, which Inco acquired in 1995-96,

is expected to have a major impact on the world nickelmarket

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 pricingmechanism. Nickel business

on the LME, however, steadily 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 mechanism 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 Exchange—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 LME 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

Co. 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 LME
95

through its parent, BillitonPlc., but produces material unlisted

on the LME: sintered-nickel rondelles, nickel oxide powder,

nickel oxide granules, and ferronickel.

The principalpurpose 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

trading 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 under the Financial

Services Act of 1985.

Hedging, a form of insurance available 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 nickelis moving through different processingstages 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 play an important role in futures trading

because they bring liquidity to the market and assume the risk

that the hedger is trying to avoid. Because metals speculation

is a high-risk venture, only professional investors or

institutions with sufficient capital to withstand 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. MetalBulletin and Platt’s Metals Week also publish

daily LME mean or index prices. The data shown in the

accompanying table for the years since 1979 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 copyrighted prices. Three of the Metals Week

prices most commonly quoted are New York DealerCathode,

New York Dealer Melting 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 about 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

rule of thumb, austenitic (Ni+Cr) stainless steel scrap is

roughly three times more valuable than ferritic (Cr only)

stainless steel scrap. Because the highest value material in

austenitic stainless steel is nickel, stainless steel scrap prices

closely 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

superalloys and other nickel-chromium alloys also are

commonly made in electric-arc furnaces. The characteristics

of the electric furnace permit the operator to use a large

percentage of scrap, economizing on consumption of virgin

chromium and nickel.

The stainless steelscrap 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 steelscrap 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 recycled in the

United States, most is in the form of stainless steel. Stainless

steel scrap currently (1999) accounts for about 85% of

reclaimed nickel in the country. This includes scrap

consumed in foundries in addition to that used in raw

steelmaking. 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 low
96

alloy steel, superalloys and other high-nickel-chromium alloys,

and/or specially-processed fines of high-carbon ferrochromium. A high scrap ratio (i.e., a high percentage of scrap

in the total charge) reduces melting time and electricity

consumption but makesfinalchemicaladjustmentsto 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 nickelreclaimed 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

enginemanufacturers is absolutely critical. Because of quality

control concerns, part of the obsolete superalloy scrap

generated at aircraft engine repair facilitiesis 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, 1928, Alloy steels, Chap. 6 of Principles of

metallurgy of ferrous metals: American Society of

Mechanical Engineers, p. 142-162.

Davis,H.W., 1956, Nickel,in Minerals Yearbook1953,v.I: U.S.

Bureau of Mines, p. 837-853.

[Government of Australia], 1999, Australian national statement:

International Nickel Study Group, 9th General Session, [The

Hague, the Netherlands], April 21, 1999, presentation, 2 p.

Hall,A.M., 1954,Nickeliniron and steel: NewYork,John Wiley

& Sons, Inc., 595 p.

Hess, F.L., 1917, Nickel, in Mineral resources of the United

States 1915: U.S. Geological Survey, pt. 1, p. 743-766.

IncoLimited,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 nickelstatistics:

TheHague,the Netherlands,International NickelStudyGroup,

v. 8, no. 11, November, p. 64-66.

Morrell,L.G., 1971,The mineral industryof Canada, inMinerals

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 of Wolff’s

guide to the London Metal Exchange (5th ed.): Surrey, United

Kingdom, Metal Bulletin Books Ltd., p. 127-133.

Wharton, Joseph, 1897, Nickel and cobalt,in Eighteenth Annual

Report of the UnitedStates 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 weight1)

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 pound1)

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, inAmerican 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

YEAR

DOLLARS

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

YEAR

DOLLARS

1992 dollars

Current dollars

Ir, Os, Pd, Pt, Rh, Ru

Platinum-Group Metals

by Henry E. Hilliard
100

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

YEAR

DOLLARS

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

YEAR

DOLLARS

1992 dollars

Current dollars
101

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

YEAR

DOLLARS

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

YEAR

DOLLARS

1992 dollars

Current dollars
102

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 expansionof production in SouthAfrica and economic recessions in the UnitedStates and

other countries

1973 Anticipateddemand 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 RustenburgPlatinum 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 occurringplatinum 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 country to

country. South Africa produces about twice as much

platinum as palladium, whereas Russia produces about three

times as much palladium as platinum (Conradie, 1997, p. 34-

40). In Canada, 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 sixPGM—iridium, osmium,

palladium, platinum, rhodium, and ruthenium—are

outstanding. Platinum’s wear and tarnish resistance

characteristics are wellsuited for making fine jewelry. Other

distinctive properties include resistance to chemical attack,

excellent 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 ofsingle crystals,

especially oxides. The chemical industry uses a significant

amount of either 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 materialfor

fertilizers, explosives, and nitric acid. In recent years, a

number of PGM have become important as catalysts in

synthetic organic chemistry. 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 petrochemical industry.

Since 1979, 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 automobile exhaust emissions. A wide

range of PGM alloy compositions is used in low-voltage and

low-energy contacts, thick- and thin-film circuits, thermocouples and furnace components, and electrodes(Hilliard and

Dunning, 1983, p. 129-142).

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 producer price and inducing

consumers to buy increasing quantities on the free market to

meet their requirements. Also, the increased growth of

investmentsin platinum added more pressure on producersto

adopt a more realistic price level. Consequently, South

African producers largely abandoned producer prices and

adopted a pricing policy that more closely reflected market

conditions. NYMEX and the Tokyo Commodity Exchange

for Industry trade PGM on the open market. 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 palladium 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

marketing 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 amount
103

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 platinumwere tight, putting

upward pressure on prices. In 1965, U.S. suppliers allocated

platinum to established customers at $100 per ounce. U.S.

purchases of platinum were up sharply owing to the

construction of new petroleum refineries. Prices for PGM

during 1967 reflected the short supplies that persisted

throughout the year. Although the producer price for

platinum showed a small increase, dealer prices were up

sharply. At the start of 1967, the producer price for platinum

was $100 per 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 rhodium 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 growinganticipation that PGM

might be needed in a few years for automotive exhaust

emissions control, prices and production posted significant

increases in 1972. By the second quarter of 1972, U.S.

dealer prices for platinum and palladium had exceeded

producer prices. By midyear, the dealer price for iridium had

increased from $145 to $148 per ounce to $525. Production

and price trends continued the upward trend in 1973.

Producer prices, which were under Government controlmuch

of the year, increased by 10% to 50% in February, fluctuated

between narrow limits in June, and then advanced again in

late September. After price controls were removed from

most nonferrous metals in December, rhodium and iridium

increased 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 scarce, 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 levelfor 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 speculation 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 sellingmost of its output

at 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 nearly doubled

because 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 1986, 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 South 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 platinummarket reacted strongly to

an announcement by Ford Motor Company that it 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 platinumfluctuated 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

implementing measures to reduce pollutants in automobile

exhausts. The emphasis on controlling air pollution resulted

in increased demand for PGM. Palladium-rhodium and
104

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 ounce. 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 turned downward. This was

brought on by recession in market economy countries,

reduced 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-rhodium 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

States. Prices continued to rise in 1998, reaching $640 in

April, its highest level since 1994 (Platt’s Metals Week,

1998).

From 1990 to 1996, prices for ruthenium and iridium

remained mostly unchanged within narrow limits. Supply and

demand were in balance and there was little or no upward

pressure on prices. At the start of 1997, strong consumer

purchasing coupled with increasingly limited availability

caused the price of iridium to 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 supply 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 (14th 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, Dailyprices: Platt’s Metals Week, v.

69, no. 16, April 20, p. 17.

Roskill Information Services Ltd, 1991, The economics of

platinum group metals (5th ed.): Roskill Information Services

Ltd, 203 p.

Ware,G.C.,1963,Platinum-groupmetals,in Minerals Yearbook,

v. I: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 899-911.
105

Annual Average Iridium Price

(Dollars per troy ounce1)

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 ounce1)

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 ounce1)

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 ounce1)

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 ounce1)

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 ounce1)

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

YEAR

DOLLARS

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

YEAR

DOLLARS

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. Hedrick
110

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

YEAR

DOLLARS

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

YEAR

DOLLARS

1992 dollars

Current dollars
111

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

YEAR

DOLLARS

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

YEAR

DOLLARS

1992 dollars

Current dollars
112

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

YEAR

DOLLARS

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

YEAR

DOLLARS

1992 dollars

Current dollars
113

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

YEAR

DOLLARS

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

YEAR

DOLLARS

1992 dollars

Current dollars
114

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

YEAR

DOLLARS

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

YEAR

DOLLARS

1992 dollars

Current dollars
115

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

YEAR

DOLLARS

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

YEAR

DOLLARS

1992 dollars

Current dollars
116

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

YEAR

DOLLARS

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

YEAR

DOLLARS

1992 dollars

Current dollars
117

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 regulationslimitleadingasoline,reducingdemandforrare-earth-containingpetroleumfluidcracking

catalysts

1980-90’s Increased production from 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 lanthanide group of elements, is

radioactive. Except for very minor occurrences of this

element in nature, most commercially available material is

created in the laboratory. Of the 13 isotopes known to occur,

promethium's half-lives are short, existing for only a few

seconds to a few years. Because it is used in very small

quantities and isotope price data is typically based on its

radioactivity, promethium prices are not included in this

report.

Prices of commercial quantities of a complete range of

rare-earth metals were first quoted in the United States in the

late 1950’s and early 1960’s. Prices decreased considerably

as availability and extraction technology improved.

Separation technology and metallurgicalmethods 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 powdered metal (Mosander, 1827).

August Beringer in 1842, Jean-Charles G. de Marginac in

1853, and Friedrich 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, using an argon

atmosphere to produce cerium metal 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% mischmetal (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 technologies

improved. Demand then increased as lower cost individual

rare-earth metals became available. 

Rare-earth metal prices vary considerably depending on

purity and quantity. Price fluctuations in the late 1950’s to

1998 were affected primarily by supply and demand,

environmental legislation, and economic factors, especially

inflation and energy costs.

The decline in rare-earth metal prices during the period

from 1958-71 resulted from the opening of the large rareearths deposit at Mountain Pass, 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 steel for the Alaskan oil

pipeline. Beginning in 1978, prices for the rare-earth metals

were tied primarily to the U.S. economy. Double-digit

inflation and higher energy costs increased operating costs

throughout the mining industry. Rare-earth metal prices

followed the trend and began increasing in 1979 to offset

higher operating costs.

After the 1981-82 recession, asthe economy improved and
118

inflation subsided, rare-earth metal prices stabilized, for the

most part. The exception during this period was scandium.

The main source of scandium at this time, the Soviet Union,

ceased exports in 1984, reportedly because of internal

demand for laserresearch. 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

legislation 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, resulting 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 for lanthanum-nickel metal hydride rechargeable

batteries used primarily in cordlesstools, 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, Gauthier-Villars,

Comptes Rendus desSéances 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 andthermal-reductionprocesses: 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 1787-1987—Two hundred years of rare

earths: New York, Rare-earth Information Center and

North-Holland, p. 23-32.

Hedrick, J.B., 1987a, Other metals,in Minerals Yearbook 1985,

v. I: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 1096-1097.

———1987b, Rare-earth minerals and 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,Annalender PhysikundChemie,(Poggendorff),no.

8, v. 155 , p. 633-639.

Leigh, G.J., ed., 1990, Nomenclature of inorganic chemistryrecommendations 1990: Oxford, Blackwell Scientific

Publications, p. 43.

Mosander,C.G.,1827,EinigesüberdasCerium[Somethingabout

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 [Preparation of silicon-free lanthanum

metal]: Paris,ComptesRendus des Séances de l'Académie des

Sciences, v. 194, p. 1653-1655.

———1933, Préparation du néodyme métallique exempt de fer

et de silicium [Preparationof silicon-free neodymium metal]:

Paris, Comptes 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

YEAR

DOLLARS

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 Tennessee 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 totaloutput 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 rhenium were developed—the additions of
128

rhenium increase the corrosion resistance of stainless steel;

the nuclear properties of rhenium offer potential as a reactorshieldingmaterialfor 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 decreased as Atomic Energy Commission programs

were completed. This decrease was reversed by the development of rhenium and rhenium-platinum catalysts used in the

cracking of petroleum hydrocarbons (National Research

Council, 1968). 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 alloys 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 decreased demand for aircraft engines following the

dissolution of the Soviet Union.

References Cited

Habashi, Fathi, 1997, Rhenium seventy years old, in Byrskin,

B.D., ed., 1997, Rhenium and rhenium alloys—International

Symposium on Rhenium and Rhenium Alloys,February 9-13,

1997, Orlando, FL, Proceedings: Warrendale, PA, The

Minerals, Metals & Materials Society, p. 15-36.

Millensifer, T.A., 1997, Rhenium background and markets, in

Byrskin, B.D., ed., 1997, Rhenium and rhenium

alloys—International Symposium on Rhenium and Rhenium

Alloys, February 9-13, 1997, Orlando, FL, Proceedings:

Warrendale,PA, The Minerals,Metals &Materials Society, p.

37-47.

NationalResearchCouncil,1968,Trendsinusage ofrhenium—A

report by the Materials AdvisoryBoard: National Academy of

Sciences/National Academy of Engineering, MAB-251,

Washington, D.C., December, p. 9.

Sutulov, Alexander,1976,Molybdenumandrhenium1778-1977:

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

YEAR

DOLLARS

1992 dollars

Current dollars

Rb

Rubidium

by Robert G. Reese, Jr.

Rubidium was discovered in 1861 but had extremely

limited industrialuse until the 1920’s (Perel’man, 1965, p. 1).

Small quantities of rubidium-containingminerals 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

purities ranging from 99.5% to 99.8%. The annual prices

presented in the graph and table may not be comparable from

year to year owing to differences in purities, quantity of

material purchased, and/or the source of the price. For

example, prior to 1963, most of the prices published in the

U.S. Bureau of Mines Minerals 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

YEAR

DOLLARS

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 humans
132

The discovery ofseleniumis credited to J.J. Berzelius, who

isolated it in 1817 from the red residue found in sulfuric acid

prepared at the pyrite mining operation at Fahlun, Sweden

(Carapella, 1984, p. 842). For almost a century, selenium

was merely a scientific curiosity, until its use as a pigment in

the manufacture of red glass, ceramics, and glazes was

established 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 ofseleniumas 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 peak of 565 tons in 1969, during the Vietnam War.

Disruptions to copper production, changing technology, and

variable demand contributed to year-to-year fluctuations in

production. From 1970 through 1980, domestic production

fellmarkedly, with imports accounting for an increasingshare

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 net imports,

apparent consumption also fluctuated markedly from year to

year owing to economic cycles, military engagements,

technical developments, and consumer stockpiling. Growth

in consumption was driven by the development of new uses,

including applications in rubber compounding, steel alloying,

and selenium rectifiers. Consumption generally increased

through 1969 when it peaked at almost 900 tons owingmainly

to defense requirements. By 1970, selenium in rectifiers had

largely been replaced by silicon, but its use as a

photoconductor in plain paper copiers had become its leading

application. 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 increase 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 positive correlation between selenium

supplementation and cancer prevention in humans (Clark,

1996, p. 1957-1963). Although this could be very important

from a public health viewpoint, direct application 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 are withheld to prevent

publication of proprietary information.

References Cited

Brown, R.D., Jr., 1998, Selenium and tellurium—Supply demand

relationship: International Symposium on the Uses of

SeleniumandTellurium,6

th

, Scottsdale,AZ,May10-12,1998,

Proceedings, 314 p.

Carapella, S.C., Jr., 1984, Selenium (4thed.): New York, Van

Nostrand Reinhold Encyclopedia of Chemistry, 1082 p.

Clark,L.C.,andothers,1996,Effect ofseleniumsupplementation

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, andprocessing: 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 Price1

(Dollars per pound2)

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

YEAR

CENTS

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

YEAR

CENTS

1992 dollars

Current dollars

Si

Silicon

by Thomas S. Jones
136

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 is a light chemical element with metallic and

nonmetallic characteristics. It is second in importance to

manganese in overallsteelmaking. In the form of ferrosilicon,

silicon is used for deoxidizing and as a strengthening alloy in

the production of iron and steel. Silicon metal is used

primarily in the aluminum and chemical industries.

Principal elements in the cost of silicon and ferrosilicon

production are the delivered costs of the ore (quartz or

quartzite) and the costs of energy, reductant coke or low ash

coal, iron in the form of steel scrap (if required), and labor.

These costs, and particularly that of energy, have increased

rapidly since 1970. In addition, new capital costs for pollution

control equipment have been incurred. Bulk ferroalloys

produced in submerged-arc furnaces are extremely power

intensive, especially silicon metal and silicon-containing alloys,

which can require up to 14,000 kilowatt-hours of electric

energy per metric ton of silicon contained in the final product

(Dosaj, 1997). Energy is the largest cost component in the

production of silicon metal and silicon-containing alloys and

can account for one-fifth or more of total costs (de Linde,

1995).

Specifications for silicon metal used by the primary

aluminumand chemicalindustries generally are more stringent

than those for metal used by the secondary aluminum

industry. Price trends for the small quantities of high-purity,

high-value silicon produced for electronic uses are not

addressed in this 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 nominal silicon content, the main

varieties of 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

specialty ferrosilicons, the most important is perhaps

magnesiumferrosilicon. 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, averaging about 1.45

overall.

E&MJ Metal and Minerals Markets and its successors

(Metals Week in 1967 and Platt’s Metals Week in 1993) are

believed to have been the source of most, 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

been 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 changesin 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 generalrate 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.

From 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 ferrosilicon and between

18.1 and 21.9 cents per pound for metal.

Prices began to rise in the early 1970’s owing to higher

costs of scrap iron, metallurgical-grade coal, and electric

power and the cost of newly installed pollution controldevices

to comply with governmental standards, which became

effective in 1975 (Murphy and Brown, 1985). Prices for
137

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 1970.

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 chemicalindustries,

and by the end of the 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 prices of 1988 had declined significantly.

The sudden decline in prices was caused mainly by

oversupply of material resulting from the reactivation of idle

capacity, development of new capacity in South America, and

escalation of low-cost imports from China, South America,

and the then-U.S.S.R. Consequently, in response to a

continuing soft world market, several domestic producers

scheduled production cutbacks.

Subsequently 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 Justice, two firms pled

guilty and received fines in 1995-96 for price fixing of

ferrosilicon (Jones, 1998). In 1997, a third firm was found

guilty of price fixing of ferrosilicon (Megregian, 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 petitioned 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 their 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

some of these duties have been the subject of annual

administrative reviews and court challengesthat led, in certain

cases, to revisions of the duties.

The 1996 price 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 strong 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 (4th ed.):

New York, John Wiley & Sons, v. 21, p. 1104-1122.

Jones, T.S., 1998, Silicon, in 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, Ferroalloymarkets,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 talkpresented, unpaginated.

Murphy, G.F., and Brown, R.E., 1985, Silicon, in Mineral facts

and problems: U.S.Bureau ofMinesBulletin 675, p. 713-728.
138

Annual Average 50% Ferrosilicon Price

(Cents per pound contained silicon1

)

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 pound1

)

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

YEAR

DOLLARS

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 the highest thermal and

electricalconductivity. Also, silver halides are photosensitive.

Owing to the above properties, silver has many industrial

applications, such as in mirrors, electrical and electronic

products, and photography, which is the largest single end use
140

of silver. Silver’s catalytic properties make it idealfor use as

a catalyst in oxidation reactions; for example, the production

of formaldehyde from methanol and air, catalyzed by silver

screens or crystallites containing 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

miningoperations 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

markets and futures exchanges. It is possible for these

markets to overlap if the buyers of futures contracts take

delivery ofsilvermetal 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 matured. Physical markets are

operated by bullion dealers, banks, and commodity dealers.

Silver is bought from mines and refineries and sold to

consumers and brokers to supply industrial and investment

demand. The London Bullion Market, which had its origins

in the 17th century, was the leading physical market until

about 1960 when it was overtaken in importance by the New

York Market. The London Market fixes a daily price, at

which all orders to buy or sell silver can be matched. The

New York Market price for silver is the Handy & Harman

quote for unfabricated silver, which the company announces

daily at noon. That is the lowest price at which offers can be

obtained by Handy & Harman for silver in commercial bar

form. The Handy & Harman price and the London fixing are

for 99.9 %-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, technological 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 Silver 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 remained 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

industrial demand for silver and static mine production

resulted in the market price increasing to $0.91 and Treasury

silver sales being the largest 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—the investor-speculator. The silver certificates

authorized by the Silver Purchase Act of 1934 were redeemable for silver held by the Treasury. At a market price above

$1.29, a profit could be made by redeeming the silver

certificates, receiving 0.77 ounce of silver from the Treasury,

and then selling the silver. In addition, at a market price

above $1.38, a profit could be made by melting U.S.

circulating coinage for its silver content. Realizing that it

could not continue to supply industrial consumers with silver,

mint coinage, and maintain a stock of silver for redemption of

silver certificates, the Government began a program to

demonetize silver. Public Law 88-36, which repealed the

Silver Purchase Act of 1934 and authorized 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 part, to an economic

recession in the United States and an attempt by the

Government to stabilize the price of silver. From 1972

through 1975, the average price increased, owing to such

factors as the devaluation of the U.S. dollar and an embargo

of oil exports by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting

Countries. Prices also increased from 1976 through 1980.

Analysts attributed this 5-year period of higher average prices

to such factors as a high domestic inflation rate combined

with slow growth in U.S. economic activity, another “oil

crisis,” a U.S. economic recession that began in 1979, and an

attempt by a group of investors to “corner” the silver market

(Roskill Information Services Ltd., 1984, p. 190-203). By

early 1981, the silver market was beginning to adjust to the

upward pressure placed on prices in 1979 through 1980.

Owing to worldwide recession and reaction to higher silver

prices, industrial demand for silver was in decline, and

investment demand for silver fell sharply. Supply also fell as

the surge of secondary recovery from old scrap and coin

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 financialmarkets and fear of

inflation, investment demand for silver increased sharply in

late 1982 and the first quarter of 1983. This influx of investor

buying helped push silver prices from the low of $4.88 in

June 1982 to a peak of $14.74 in February 1983. In March,

this rapid rise in price (the price nearly tripled in 9 months)

was reversed as investors took profits, industrial 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 prices
141

relieved the pressure to use less silver or to use lower cost

substitutes for silver in products. After starting 1987 at $5.44

per ounce, prices reached a low of $5.36 on January 7.

Prices increased 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 politicalunrest 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 slowed and large supplies from

Russia and other East European countries appeared in the

market. In September, prices increased again to $5.71 per

ounce before collapsing to $4.90 on November 30. Prices in

1995 were not quite as volatile as in 1994, but the downward

trend that began in April 1994 continued (Silver Institute,

1995, p. 8-15).

For centuries, the price of silver has been closely coupled

with the price of gold, but the demonetization of both metals

in much of the world has weakened the link. Throughout

most of 1996, the price of silver was adversely affected by

the poor performance of gold. Toward the end of 1996,

however, the price of silver began to deviate from the price of

gold, owing to investors’ and speculators’ adoption of

distinctly different positions in the two markets. This

decouplingprocess 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 price 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

Industrialaverage 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 silver 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 month. 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., andCoxe,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. 

RoskillInformationServicesLtd.,1984,The economics of silver

(3d ed.): London, Roskill Information Services Ltd., 203 p. 

Silver Institute, 1990, World silver survey, 1950-1990:

Washington, DC, Silver Institute, 81 p.

———1995,World silversurvey,1995:Washington,DC, Silver

Institute, 64 p.
142

 Annual Average Silver Price

(Dollars per troy ounce1)

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

YEAR

DOLLARS

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 lampsin the early 1900’s (Miller, 1959).

Currently, the major use for tantalum, as tantalum metal

powder, isin the production of electronic components, mainly

tantalum capacitors. Alloyed with other metals, tantalum is

also used in makingcarbide tools for metalworkingequipment

and in the production of superalloys for jet engine

components. Substitutes, such as aluminum, rhenium,

titanium, tungsten, and zirconium, exist for tantalum but are

usually made at either a performance or economic penalty.

Tantalum mineral concentrates (tantalite) are the main

primary source of tantalum, 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 followsthe pattern for that of tantalum concentrates.

The price for tantalum metal products is also affected by the

size of the order/contract and material specification. The

yearend 1998 price for tantalum concentrates was about

$41.50 per pound of contained tantalum compared with the
144

most recent industry source 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 mineralconcentrates. 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-tantalum

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, waslesssuccessful in developingdomestic tantalum

mineral production. The low grade of the discoveries

precluded their development at current or expected future

prices.

By 1960, tantalum demand for use in capacitors,

high-temperature alloys, corrosion-resistant chemical and

nuclear applications, 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 drivingprices

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

operations, 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 period were attributed, in part, to a

state of panic buying influenced by anticipated increases in

tantalum demand amidst concerns of shrinking world tantalum

supply. As demand for tantalum increased, some processors

foresaw the coming production shortfall and began to

stockpile inventories. The net effect was very competitive

buying of tantalum feed materials to meet customer needs

with associated spiraling prices. The high prices brought

about substitution for tantalum and more-widespread search

for and development of new tantalum supply sources.

In 1979 to 1980, the price for tantalum source materials

exploded. Tantalum source material production could not

meet market demand, resulting in sustained inventory

reduction. With optimistic forecasts of market growth,

processors found themselveslocked 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 runaway 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 increase 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 of 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 lowest 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 tantalum oxide, nearly

doubled the yearend 1987 price. The price escalation was

attributed to increased demand for tantalum source materials

following a drawdown of the tantalum inventories that had

been built up.

The price for tantalum ore continued its cyclic pattern

through 1993; thereafter, the price was steady with some

moderate increases. From 1990 to 1998, the demand for

tantalum remained strong, with increased consumption in

most years. Demand was robust in the electronics sector for

tantalum capacitors in such products as 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 components, 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 largest 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 (Sons of

Gwalia Ltd., 1998).

In 1998, the DLA initiated the sale of tantalum 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 minerals, about

$34 per pound of contained oxide.

References Cited

Cunningham, L.D., 1985a, Columbium, in Mineral facts and

problems: U.S. Bureau of Mines Bulletin 675, p. 185-196.

———1985b, Tantalum, in Mineral facts and problems: U.S.

Bureau of Mines Bulletin 675, p. 811-822.

———1993, Columbium and tantalum, in Minerals Yearbook

1990, v. I: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 339-357.

Defense National Stockpile Center, 1998a, Stockpile awards

tantalum minerals: Fort Belvoir, VA, Defense National

Stockpile Center news release, September 24, 1 p.

———1998b, Stockpile awardstantalumminerals: Fort Belvoir,

VA, Defense National Stockpile Center news release,

December 4, 1 p.

GwaliaConsolidatedLtd.,1991, GwaliaConsolidatedLtd.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., 1998, Sons of Gwalia Ltd. annual report

1998: West Perth, Western Australia, Sons of Gwalia Ltd.,

92 p.

Tantalum-Niobium International Study Center, 1986,

Perspectives on the development of the tantalum industry:

Tantalum-NiobiumInternational Study Center No. 48, October,

p. 2-5.

Yearend Average Tantalum Concentrate Price

(Dollars per pound contained tantalum pentoxide1)

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&MJMetal andMineral 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

YEAR

DOLLARS

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 stimulatedby 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 decreasesfaster than production, high-efficiency cadmium telluride solar cells

fail to increase demand significantly 

Tellurium is a relatively rare element, tied for 71stplace

with platinum and palladium in rank of crustal abundance. It

is in the same chemical family as oxygen, sulfur, selenium,

and polonium: oxygen and sulfur are nonmetals, polonium is

a metal, and selenium and tellurium are semiconductors,

although they are often referred to as metals when in

elemental form. Tellurium was first identified in 1782 in

Transylvanian gold ore (Azimov, 1994, p. 260). For more

than a century, tellurium was an experimental material having

little commercial value. Small quantities of tellurium were
148

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 imbalances that have had significant

impacts on price (Elkin, 1985, p. 1,158).

By 1920, a small commercial demand had developed for

telluriumin 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 during 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 supply 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 stabilizing 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 (Holowaty, 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 tellurium catalyst closed its

plant in late 1979, reducing demand and returning large

quantities of consumer 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 the 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-machining steels and low production of tellurium,

inventories became critically low, and pricesrose substantially

and remained fairly stable until 1993, when a steady decline

began that lasted through 1998. During this period, an

oversupply situation developed owingto the fact that although

production 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

material, 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 importingscrap for processing by their

metal industries, not merely for disposal. Actually, tellurium

metal is not toxic. It was removed from the U.S.

EnvironmentalProtection Agency’smost-hazardous materials

list when its insolubility was pointed out to agency officials

(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

Azimov, Isaac, 1994, Azimov’s chronology of science and

discovery: New York, Harper Collins Publishers, 800 p.

Brown, R.D., Jr., 1998, Selenium tellurium supply-demand

relationship: International Symposium on the Uses of

SeleniumandTellurium,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,Seleniumandtellurium,inMineral resources

of the United States 1920: U.S. Geological Survey, pt.

I—Metals, p. 71-72.

———1933, Arsenic, bismuth, selenium, and tellurium, in

Mineral resources of the UnitedStates 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, assignedto Inland Steel Co., October

13.

Lansche, A.M., 1963, Tellurium, in Minerals and Metals

Commodity Data Summaries: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 148-

149.

Metal Bulletin, 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, assignedto 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 growdespite lower output of this

copper byproduct: Engineering and Mining Journal, v. 183, no.

3, March, p. 122-123.

Annual Average Tellurium Price

(Dollars per pound1)

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

YEAR

DOLLARS

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

makingspectroscopic determinationsfor telluriumon 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 mostly in association

with potassium minerals in clays, soils, and granites and, thus,

is generally considered to be commercially unavailable in this

form. Several thallium minerals, containing 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 commercialthalliumisthe trace amounts

found in copper, lead, zinc, and other sulfide ores. Thallium

is recovered as a byproduct from the flue dust and residues

generated during the roasting and smelting steps in the

processing of these ores.

From 1912 to 1930, thallium compounds were used

extensively for medicinal purposes; for example, in the

treatment of ringworm, dysentery, and tuberculosis. The

narrow margin between toxicity and therapeutic benefit,

however, eventually eliminated the practical use of these
152

compounds. The use of thallium salts as poison for rodents

and later as insecticide led to increased use of thallium from

1925 to 1965; significant quantities of the rodenticide were

used by the U.S. military to control rat infestation in World

War II operations (Lee, 1971; Smith and Carson, 1977).

The postwar price of thallium metal reached $18.00 per

pound after the wartime allocation and price control system

imposed on thallium chemicals was lifted by the War

Production Board in 1946. In 1965, the U.S. Government

issued regulations prohibiting the household use of thalliumcontaining rodent poisons and insecticides because of their

extreme toxicity to humans, resulting in a significant decline in

thallium consumption. By 1973, all retail sales of these

chemicals had been banned in the United States. Although

thallium consumption declined sharply as a result of the loss

of these markets, the decline was offset to some extent by

increases in the uses of thallium in electronic applications,

chemical synthesis, and such minor uses as components for

solders, low-melting alloys, low-temperature thermometers,

and optical glasses. During this period of transition in the

end-use sectors, the published domestic producer price

remained at $7.50 per pound through 1980. In 1981,

ASARCO Incorporated, the only domestic producer of

thallium and thallium compounds, stopped production. From

1981 through 1988, the price of thallium metal was based

upon information obtained from import dealers. By 1988,

thallium prices had risen to $80.00 per pound.

In the 1990’s, consumption of thallium 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

electricalresistance component in infrared radiation detection

and transmission equipment, a crystalline filter for light

diffraction in acousto-optical measuring devices, an alloy with

mercury for low-temperature measurements, an addition to

glass to increase its refractive index and density, a catalyst or

intermediate in the synthesis of organic compounds, and a

high-density liquid for sink-float separation of minerals. In

addition, research activity has been ongoing to develop hightemperature superconducting materials for such applications

as magnetic resonance imaging, storage of magnetic energy,

magnetic propulsion, and electric power generation and

transmission. Since 1989, numerous patents have been issued

for and reports have been published on the preparation of

high-temperature superconductor compounds containing

thallium. In 1993, one U.S. company joined the International

Superconductivity Technology Research Center, a 46-

member superconductivity consortium based in Japan. As a

member of this consortium, the company now sends two

scientists to the Center to conduct research on its newly

discovered thallium compounds that superconduct at high

temperatures. The use of radioactive thallium compounds

for medical purposes in cardiovascularimagingto 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 of any purity since 1988, the price of

thallium metal has been based upon the metal price listed in

retail supplier catalogues. The price of 99.999%-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 chemistryofthallium:Amsterdam,Elsevier,

p. 1-4.

Smith, I.C., and Carson, B.L., 1977, Thallium, v. 1 of Trace

metalsin the environment: AnnArbor,MI, AnnArborScience,

p. 9-16.
153

Annual Average Thallium Price

(Dollars per pound1)

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

YEAR

DOLLARS

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, discovered thorium in the mineral thorite

(Söderbaum, 1929-31), which had 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

thorium began with the invention and development of the

incandescent gas light “Welsbach mantle,” or “Auerlicht,” by

Austrian chemist 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 magnesiumnitratesto adjust the brightness and

strength of the lamp mantle (Auer von Welsbach, 1902).

World production initially came from Sweden and Norway,

but the United States (1893), Brazil (1895), and India (1911)

followed, 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,

monazite, thorium is used in small amounts in alloying
156

magnesium, emitting electrons at microwave frequencies, and

welding electrodes to provide a stable and continuous arc

(Hedrick, 1997).

Fluctuations in the price of thorium have been minimized

by its byproductstatus 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 allthorium 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 price of thorium metal was quoted in dollars per

pound beginning in 1958. The previous year, the Atomic

Energy Commission (AEC) released information on an

improved process for preparing high-purity (99.9% purity)

thorium metal (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 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 late 1960’s and early 1970’s were related to

increased demand for aviation alloys during the VietnamWar

(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 materials generated as a byproduct of rare-earth

production were disposed of in tailing ponds or shipped to

U.S. Government 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 suitable 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 alloyZH-62. During the mid-1990’s,

most domestic companies ceased using thorium-bearingmetal

and alloys in their products, the result of concerns and costs

related to its natural radioactivity (Hedrick, 1996).

References Cited

Atomic Energy Commission, 1957, Atomic energy facts—A

summary of atomic activities of interest to industry: U.S.

Atomic Energy Commission, September, p. 72.

Auer von Welsbach, Carl, 1902, History of the invention of

incandescent gas-lighting: Chemical News, v. 85, May 30, p.

254-256.

Baroch, C.T., 1968,Thorium, in Minerals Yearbook1967, 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, in Minerals Yearbook 1995, v. I: U.S.

Bureau of Mines, p. 847-850.

———1997, Thorium, in 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 elements,

yttrium, and thorium: U.S. Bureau of Mines Information

Circular 8476, 92 p.

Söderbaum,H.G.,1929-31,Jac.Berzeliuslevnadsteckning[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 (7th 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

YEAR

DOLLARS

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 International Tin Agreement” in 1956, the first of a

continuously numbered series that essentially collapsed in

1985. Through this series of agreements, the International

Tin Council (ITC) had a 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 agreements, however, it was apparent that the

bufferstockpile was notsufficiently large, especially to defend

the artificial ceiling prices. Consequently, during most of

those 29 years, tin prices rose, sometimes sharply, especially

from 1973 through 1980 when rampant inflation plagued the

American and many foreign economies.

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

consumption declined dramatically. The ITC was able to

avoid truly steep declines through accelerated buying for its

buffer stockpile; this activity required the ITC to borrow

extensively from banks and metal tradingfirmsto 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 tradingon the London

Metal Exchange for about 3 years, the ITC dissolved soon

afterward, and the price of tin, now in a free-market

environment, plummeted sharply to the $4 per pound level

(Roskill Information Services Ltd., 1995, p. 283-290). The

price of tin has remained in that lower range since 1985,

except for 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 pound1)

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

YEAR

DOLLARS

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 excellent 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, and
162

ilmenite. Titanium metal is consumed primarily in the

commercial and military aerospace industries. 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.

Although commercial production of titanium pigments

began in the early 1900’s, commercially produced titanium

metal was not available until 1948. During the first two

decades of the commercialdevelopment of titaniummetal, the

price per pound declined significantly. Cancellation of the

SST program in 1971 tended to keep demand and prices for

titaniumsponge low through 1973. From 1973 through 1981,

however, prices rose along with generally increasing orders

for commercial aircraft and other industrialuses. The historic

high price in 1981 and the subsequent price collapse were

believed to have been accentuated by an overestimation of

aircraft orders that did not materialize or were later canceled

as the aircraft market deteriorated, leaving some producers

with large inventories of titanium metal products to be drawn

from during a period of lower demand (National Materials

Advisory Board, 1983, p. 7-22). From 1985 through 1989,

titanium metal prices were again on the rise, reflecting

renewed strength in the commercial aircraft and other

industrial markets. Military aircraft programs, such as the

B-1B bomber program, also contributed to the rise in demand

during this period. Owing to this increased demand, two of

the domestic sponge producers made moderate expansions to

their existing capacity during 1988 and 1989 (Titanium

Development Association, 1990, p. 3).

 The early 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.

Owing to decreased demand and the availability of

imported material, RMI Titanium Co. closed its 10,900-

metric-ton-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-yearsponge plant at its Henderson, NV, facility. The

expansion was based on a derivation of the Kroll process

called Vacuum Distillation Process (VDP). According to

industry reports, the new plant produced a higher quality

sponge at lower operatingcosts. 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 commercial aircraft orders rose sharply from

1995 to 1997 (Aviation Week & Space Technology, 1997).

By 1997, domestic consumption of titanium sponge reached

a record high of 32,000 metric tons. 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 fallin 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, Titanium 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.

Aviation Week & Space Technology, 1997, Boeing suppliers

warn of protracted delays: Aviation Week & Space

Technology, v. 147, no. 13, p. 22.

Barksdale, Jelks, 1966, Titanium—Its occurrence and

technology: New York, The Ronald Press Company, 691 p.

Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries,Inc., 1998, Titanium—A

titanic slide: ISRI Commodities Report, v. 4., no. 24,

December 16, p. 1-2.

Metal Bulletin, 1998, RMI secures new long-term aerospace

contracts: Metal Bulletin, no. 8253, February 16 , p. 13.

National Materials Advisory Board, 1983, Titanium—Past,

present, and future:Washington,DC,National AcademyPress,

209 p.

RMI Titanium Co., 1992, Annual report 1992: Niles, OH, RMI

Titanium Co., 33 p.

Titanium Development Association, 1990, Statistical review

1980-1989: Dayton, OH, Titanium Development Association,

27 p.
163

Average Yearend Titanium Sponge Price

(Dollars per pound1)

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

YEAR

DOLLARS

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 counterweights.

Chemical uses of tungsten include catalysts, inorganic

pigments, and high-temperature lubricants.

Tungsten prices and many tungsten statistics are quoted in

units of tungsten trioxide (WO3). The short ton unit, used in

the United States, is 1% of a short ton (20 pounds) and

tungsten trioxide is 79.3% tungsten. Therefore, a short ton

unit of WO3equals 20 pounds of WO3and 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 WO3contains 7.93 kilograms

(17.48 pounds) of tungsten.

Until 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 the price of the intermediate product

ammonium paratungstate as a reference price (International

Tungsten Industry Association, 1997, p. 32). Prices of

tungsten concentrates and ammonium paratungstate generally
166

follow similar trends. One would expect the price of

ammonium paratungstate to exceed that of concentrate by an

amount equivalent to the processing costs to convert

concentrate to ammonium paratungstate. In 1992, however,

the Metal Bulletin price for ammonium paratungstate actually

fell below that for concentrate. At that time, the normal

premium for ammonium paratungstate was estimated to be

between $23 and $32 per short ton unit. The following were

cited as possible explanationsfor this unusualpricingsituation:

the availability of very inexpensive feedstock for Chinese

ammonium paratungstate plants or Government subsidies for

those plants (Maby, 1993).

The main forms of tungsten used by downstream

consuming industries are 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 ofscarcity and oversupply.

In addition to general economic conditions and industrial

activity, the following factors have affected the tungsten

market over time: China’s position as the world’s largest

producer; changesin availability from Communist or formerly

Communist countries; purchases for or sales from various

Governmentstockpiles; trade controls; buildup 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 large 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 severalfactors. Following the Korean conflict, high

prices combined with U.S. Government programsto stockpile

tungsten and to encourage domestic production by purchasing

tungsten concentrates from U.S. mines at a fixed price led to

an increase in production (Geehan, 1952; Grainger, 1960).

This was followed by reduced demand when the U.S.

Government’s tungsten acquisition program was completed

and increased supply as a result of the disposal of stockpiled

ore from the United Kingdom, the resumption of shipments

from Korea, and increased offers of tungsten from China and

Russia (Grainger, 1960, 1962).

In late 1963, exports of tungsten from China, North Korea,

and Russia suddenly decreased significantly from those of

previous years. The apparent withdrawal of these countries

from the world market combined with an increase in demand

from Eastern Europe resulted in a supply squeeze and a

significant increase in prices by late 1964. The high prices led

to an increase in mine production from non-Communist

countries and increased recycling of tungsten-bearing scrap.

In 1965, the U.S. Government began a long-term sales

program of tungsten concentrates from Defense Production

Act inventories. The increase in supply from these sources

was not enough to balance the loss of tungsten from

Communist countries during a period of strong worldwide

demand (Grainger, 1965; Engineering and Mining Journal,

1967). As a result, the annual average U.S. price of tungsten

concentrate in 1966 was more than four times greater than

that of 1963.

Pricesremained relatively high duringthe 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

production of tungsten carbide balls for ballpoint pens and

studs for automobile snow tires. Sales of tungsten concentrates from the U.S. Government at fixed prices contributed

to the stabilization of the U.S. market (Stevens, 1969).

Between March 1966 and December 1973, the U.S.

Government’s General Services Administration (GSA) “off

the shelf” fixed prices for tungsten concentrates were quoted

as the price of concentrates in the U.S. market. Between

October 1969 and February 1970, European prices for

tungsten concentrates quoted in MetalBulletin increased from

approximately $46 per short ton unit to a high of

approximately $80 per short ton unit (Ratzker, 1971). The

increase in European prices was reported to be primarily the

result of a continued high level of industrial activity in

combination with the absence of significant quantities of

tungsten shipments from China. In 1969, as a result of stable

fixed prices in the United States, increasing market prices in

Europe, and the availability of tungsten from the U.S.

Defense Production Act inventories, the United States

became a net exporter of tungsten concentrates for the first

time in history (Stevens, 1970).

 A worldwide economic slowdown in 1971 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 per short ton unit. European

prices decreased to a low of approximately $30 per short ton

unit by late 1972. The downward trend in European prices

during a period of increasing demand was attributed to

substantial inventories overhanging the market. By late

1972/early 1973, the rate of consumption had increased

enough to cause a significant reduction in inventory levels,

and European prices began to increase (Rawlings, 1974).

Toward the end of 1973, the GSA discontinued its “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

prevailingEuropean prices quoted in MetalBulletin. In 1974,

high levels of tungsten consumption in the United States and

Europe and the lack of large inventories resulted in an
167

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 demand, and reports of decreased

quantities of tungsten offered by China (Ho, 1977). Metals

Week began publishing U.S. spot prices for tungsten

concentrates in January 1977 after a hiatus of more than 10

years. By March 1977, this price exceeded $160 pershort 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

releasesfrom U.S. Governmentstockpiles balanced a shortfall

between production and consumption. The decline in prices

during 1978 was attributed to the following factors: an

increase in Western tungsten inventories during 1977; reduced

demand in Western Europe, particularly for ferrotungsten;

increased Western mine production; and the absence of

Eastern European buyers as a significant influence in the

Western market (Thurber, 1979).

Between late February 1979 and late October 1981, the

average of Metals Week prices for tungsten concentrate was

relatively stable in the $120- to $140-per-short-ton-unit range.

By late 1981, the worldwide recession began to affect

tungsten demand. In addition, China was exporting steadily

increasing amounts of tungsten concentrates and intermediate

products to Western markets (Thurber, 1982; Ho, 1986). In

the mid-1980's, the availability of low-priced intermediate

products from China contributed to the downward trend in

the price of tungsten concentrates. There was a marked

change from concentrate prices governing the price of

intermediate products to intermediate product prices

governing concentrate prices (Ho, 1986). The price of

concentrate trended downward to a low of $28 per short ton

unit by late 1986, and then 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 followingthe 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

consumers (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 ceased 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 China, Kazakhstan, and Russia; releases of

inventories from Russian mines; and an increase in mine

production, particularly 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 prices

continued to decrease. Prices decreased again during 1998.

Demand was strong during the first half of the year, but

weakened during the second half. At yearend, the Metals

Week price for tungsten concentrate was between $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, in

International Tungsten Industry Association annual general

meeting, 7

th

, Huntsville, AL, November 2-4, 1994,

Proceedings: London, International Tungsten Industry

Association, 16 p.

———1997, Tungsten—Can the industrymeet future demand?:

Engineering and Mining Journal, v. 198, no. 3, March, p. 37-

41. 

Burrows,J.C.,1971,Tungsten—An industryanalysis: 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, in Minerals Yearbook1952, 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 review1962: Mining Journal,

p. 41.

———1965, Tungsten, in Mining annual review 1965: Mining

Journal, p. 48-49.

Ho,Eric, 1977,Tungsten,in Mining annual review1977: 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 andMining Journal,v.187,no.3,March,p.59-61.

International Tungsten Industry Association, 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, Tungsten, in 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, Tungsten—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 unit1)

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

1To convert todollars permetric 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 ofMines MineralsYearbook,

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

YEAR

DOLLARS

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 delRio in

1801. He had isolated it from lead ores from Zimapan,

Mexico (Busch, 1961, p. 18). At the start of the 20thcentury,

vanadium remained little more than a chemical curiosity with

no commercial value because of its rarity and high cost. The

supply and cost restrictions were significantly altered in the

early years of the 20th century with the discovery of rich

vanadium deposits in several countries, including the United

States. In 1905, the American Vanadium Co. was established

to extract vanadium from ores discovered in Colorado (Kuck,

1985, p. 985). Commercial production began shortly

thereafter.

Two main prices are associated with vanadium—one is for

the ferroalloy ferrovanadium, and the other for vanadium

pentoxide; prices for vanadium metal are not published.

Because much of the world’s ferrovanadium is made from

vanadium pentoxide, the price for vanadium pentoxide has

been used.

Owing in part to its relative scarcity and the absence of free

market trading, the vanadium pentoxide price has historically
170

been a producer price. This has resulted in low volatility and

relatively stable prices, showing a gradual 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 additionalvanadium

pentoxide supplies from such countries as China and Russia,

sales of the remaining 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 andproblems: U.S.

Bureau of Mines Bulletin 675, p. 895-915.

Annual Average Vanadium Pentoxide Price1

(Dollars per pound2)

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

YEAR

DOLLARS

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 20th

century, two pricing centers emerged—St. Louis, MO, and

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 because 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 was
172

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 becomingthe main pricingmedium for zinc

in the United States.

Because price controls were in force from 1971 through

1973 and any increase of price had to be approved by the

U.S. 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 pricing basis for

zinc has essentially 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 the

determination of smelter treatment charges, led to the

reemergence of LME zinc quotations asthe 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 zinc remained

rather uneventful, reflecting the supply and demand of the

market.

References Cited

Jolly, J.H., 1993, Zinc, in Metal prices in the United 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 pound1)

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

YEAR

DOLLARS

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

YEAR

DOLLARS

1992 dollars

Current dollars

Zr

Zirconium

by James B. Hedrick
176

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 forms—powder,

sponge, and crystal bar. Martin H. Klaproth discovered the

element in Germany in 1789 by analyzing zircon (Weeks and

Leicester, 1968). Production of the first impure zirconium

metalwas by Jöns Jakob Berzelius in 1824 (Berzelius, 1825).

Commercialquantities of the ductile metal were not produced

until 100 years later when Anton Eduard van Arkel and Jan

Hedrik de Boer discovered the iodide, or crystal bar, process

(van Arkel and de Boer, 1925). Powdered zirconium metal

was available on domestic markets as early as 1930, when it

was used primarily for its pyrophoric and alloying properties.

Principal uses were for ammunition primers, vacuum-tube

getters, flash powder used in photography, and

corrosion-resistant steel alloys (Kalish, 1953). An economic

process to produce zirconium metal sponge (Kroll, or

magnesium-reduction, 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, Anderson, 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 metal (Etherington, Dalzell, and Lillie,

1955). By 1947, the USBM was operating a 27-kilogram

(60-pound)-per-week pilot plant in Albany, OR, using the

Kroll process. In response to the U.S. Navy's interest in

zirconium for possible use in nuclear powered submarines,

capacity at the pilot plant was expanded in 1949 (11,800

kilograms), 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 zirconium sponge began at

$22 per kilogram ($10 per pound). In 1952, the Atomic

Energy Commission (AEC) contracted with Carborundum

Metals Co., Akron, NY, to supply the metal for 5 years. By

1955, the Carborundum plant was producing more sponge

than was needed for the U.S. Navy’s nuclear submarine

program. At this time, the USBM's zirconium plant was

converted to a metallurgical research facility. From 1959 to

1977, the price of zirconium sponge remained fairly stable,

averaging from about $14 to $17 per kilogram ($31-$37 per

pound). The decline was also attributed to the slowing of the

nuclear submarine program and the use ofsubstitute materials

for commercial powerplants. Beginning in 1978, prices for

zirconium sponge increased, following the pattern of

zirconium powder. The substantial price increase has been

attributed primarily to the U.S. economy because laggingU.S.

economic activity and double-digit inflation increased

operating costs throughout the industry. The twofold price

increase for zirconium sponge may have been associated with

the 50% reduction in capacity by the sole domestic producer,

the cost of implementing process environmental controls to

regulate naturally occurring radioactive materials, and the

continued demand for replacement fuel cladding and

structural repairs at nuclear powerplants (Templeton, 1993).

In the 1980’s and 1990’s, the use of zirconium sponge in

military and commercial nuclear powerplants, heat

exchangers, and specialty chemical piping for corrosive

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 metal of 98%

purity was $13.23 per kilogram ($6 per pound) 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 ceramic, 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. Increases 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 increased

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 the development of the

hydrogen embrittlement technique (hydride-dehydride
177

process) to facilitate the conversion of sponge to powder and

improved demand for replacementfuel claddingand 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 reducirt aus flusfspathfaurem

Zirconkali, und einige Eigenschaften der Zirconerde

[Zirconiumobtainedbythe reductionof potassium-zirconium

fluoride, and certain properties of zirconium earth (oxide)]:

Leipzig, Germany, (Poggendorf),Annalender Physik, v. 4, p.

121-156.

Etherington, H., Dalzell,R.C., andLillie,D.W., 1955,Zirconium

and its applications to nuclear reactors, chap. 1 of The

metallurgy of zirconium: New York, McGraw-Hill, p. 1.

Hedrick, J.B., 1989, Zirconium and hafnium, in Minerals

Yearbook 1988, v. I: U.S. Bureau of Mines, p. 1049-1057.

Kalish, H.S., 1953,The preparationof zirconium powder, chap. 5

of Zirconiumandzirconiumalloys:Cleveland,OH, American

Society for Metals, p. 5-36. 

Kroll, W.J., 1937, 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., andGilbert,H.L., 1947,Recent progressin the

metallurgy of malleable zirconium: Transcripts of the

Electrochemistry Society, v. 92, p. 99.

Kroll, W.J., Anderson, C.T., Holmes, H.P., Yerkes, L.A., and

Gilbert, H.L., 1948, Large scale laboratory production of

ductile zirconium: Transcripts of the Electrochemistry

Society, v. 94, p. 1.

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 pricesin 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 (7th ed.): Easton, PA, Journal of Chemical

Education, p. 517-520.
178

Yearend Zirconium Sponge Metal Price

(Dollars per kilogram1)

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 kilogram1)

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, 1959-981

Year Price deflator2 Year Price deflator2

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

1Derived 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.

2To calculate price in constant 1992 dollars, multiply current price by price deflator. Each yearly price deflator is the

ratio of 100 to the CPI.