u ^ JO. <1> «<» » ^ ^ >b? ^ *.. »* «G V ^ *■».»- c, if : ,'7/k r*^ • • s * ^C> "^ °^ * ° * ° A i v 14 V « " • °* *J . V** .-afefc\ %.y .-isste ^^ .-ater-. ^/ .*kSM= .-^fe*- V* 1 V* 3 ^^ V v ..!^V <£ %„,/ -kSM". ^.^ /Jfe'- \./ .•»• **^** l > . 1 • O "^"S. « > '• tj, <^ *n rl^ - M* .V • I » • .^ ♦ % • ^^ -%% /.^i,\ /^A X-J^.% .G* AV"t<> ^ ^o* - e A <* *^??« .0* ^ *..»• A <\ */7;«* .G v ^ *bv* 0^ ^o* 0^ » ,l JJ!* **o r. • * ,o j^ v c °_" 8 • . "^ .d^ . • L '_• * **o j,^ (»*«, *<*> -o . , ' A V A°* _ •< 15 . i ••^w^y.^' "^ -^ »*° ^ ^' ^ y ^. • * > c° . . v *Jf?f V 'O, »o. »• A ^\ , lluM*« rfW^ ) Information Circular 9038 / Mercury Availability— Market Economy Countries A Minerals Availability Appraisal By C. P. Mlshra, D. R. Wllburn, D. G. Hartos, C. D. Sheng-Fogg, and R. C. Bowyer UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Donald Paul Hodel, Secretary BUREAU OF MINES Robert C. Horton, Director £^ As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering the wisest use of our land and water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places, and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to assure that their development is in the best interests of all our people. The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reserva- tion communities and for people who live in island territories under U.S. administration. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Main entry under title Mercury availability — market economy countries (Bureau of Mines information circular; IC 9038) Bibliography: p. 18 Supt. of Docs, no.: I 28.27: 1. Mercury industry and trade. 2. Mercury mines and mining. 3. Strategic materials. 4. Market surveys. I. Mishra, C. P. (Chamundeshawari P.) II. Series: Information circular (United States. Bureau of Mines); 9038. TN295.U4 [HD9539.M42] 622 s [338.2'7454] 85-600116 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, DC 20402 - PREFACE In order to assess the availability of strategic and critical nonfuel minerals, the Bureau of Mines Minerals Availability Program identifies, collects, compiles, and evaluates information on producing, developing, and explored deposits and mineral proc- essing plants worldwide. Objectives are to classify domestic and foreign resources, to identify by cost evaluation resources that are reserves, and to prepare analyses of mineral availabilities. This report is one of a continuing series of reports that analyze the availability of minerals from domestic and foreign sources. Questions about the Minerals Availability Program should be addressed to Chief, Division of Minerals Availability, Bureau of Mines, 2401 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20241. CONTENTS Page Preface iii Abstract 1 Introduction 2 Acknowledgments 2 Commodity overview 2 Consumption and uses 2 Substitutes 2 Recycling 3 Production history 3 Market and pricing history 4 Identification and selection of deposits 5 Deposit evaluation procedures 7 Geology 8 Resources 9 Domestic resources 9 Foreign resources 10 Page Extraction technology 11 Mining 11 Beneficiation 12 Environmental considerations 12 Capital and operating costs 13 Capital costs 13 Operating costs 13 Mercury availability 15 Total availability 15 Annual availability 15 Factors affecting availability 17 Conclusions 17 References 18 Appendix A 18 Appendix B 18 ILLUSTRATIONS 1. Mercury use distribution 3 2. Summary of production and consumption of mercury ! 4 3. Mercury market price history, 1900 to present 5 4. Location map of evaluated deposits 6 5. Bureau of Mines-U.S. Geological Survey system for classification of mineral resources 7 6. Flowsheet of evaluation procedure 7 7. Distribution of demonstrated domestic mercury resources 10 8. Flowsheet of typical mercury beneficiation process 12 9. Annual availability from producing deposits at various prices 15 10. Annual availability from nonproducing deposits at various prices 16 TABLES 1. Summary of domestic and foreign mercury demand forecasts 3 2. Deposits selected for evaluation 6 3. Demonstrated mercury resources as of January 1984 9 4. Estimated operating costs for principal mercury deposits, per metric ton of ore 14 5. Estimated operating costs for principal mercury deposits, per flask of recoverable mercury 14 6. Total resource availability 15 VI UNIT OF MEASURE ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS REPORT °c degree Celsius cm centimeter h hour km kilometer L liter lb pound m meter m 3 cubic meter mg milligram mg/L milligram per liter mg/m 3 milligram per cubic meter \xg microgram /^g/m 3 microgram per cubic meter mt metric ton pet percent yr year MERCURY AVAILABILITY— MARKET ECONOMY COUNTRIES A Minerals Availability Appraisal By C. P. Mishra, 1 D. R. Wilburn, 2 D. G. Hartos, 3 C. D. Sheng-Fogg, 2 and R. C. Bowyer 4 ABSTRACT The Bureau of Mines investigated the availability of mercury from 22 deposits in market economy countries. The 15 significant deposits evaluated have demonstrated resources of appi-oximately 25 million metric tons of ore containing 5.3 million flasks of mercury and account for more than 85 pet of the demonstrated resources for market economy countries. Using data gathered as part of its Minerals Availability Program, the Bureau determined the mercury production potential of each deposit. At a January 1984 mercury market price of $300 per flask, the deposits evaluated could economically produce an estimated 2.5 million flasks of mercury from six mines operating at the time of this study; no mercury is available at this price from nonproduc- ing operations. At $600 per flask, approximately 4.5 million flasks of mercury are available. For production costs up to $300 per flask, operating mines could supply mer- cury at the current production rate of 114,000 flasks per year until 1988, when the amount of mercury available from these deposits would decrease. This decline could be offset by the development of resources currently reported at the identified level (17 million flasks) at much higher production costs. 'Supervisory physical scientist. 'Physical scien; 'Physical scientist inow with Office of Surface Mining. Pittsburgh, PA). "Geologist. Minerals Availability Field Office, Bureau of Mines, Denver, Co. INTRODUCTION Mercury's unusual combination of physical and chemical properties gives it an industrial and economic im- portance much greater than the size of its production would indicate. It is considered by the Bureau of Mines to be a critical commodity for the United States owing to its ex- tensive use in a variety of industrial, scientific, and military applications, many of which have few satisfactory substitutes. Despite its importance, significant production is geologically restricted to a limited number of areas, many of which have ceased production in recent years as a result of depressed market conditions. Production in the United States, Yugoslavia, and Italy has declined sharply, while mercury mines in the U.S.S.R. and China have achieved a greater degree of world prom- inence. In 1983, the United States produced 50 pet of its consumption from primary sources of mercury and 28 pet from secondary sources. The remaining 22 pet was imported or supplied from Government stockpiles, (12). s Most of the current domestic production comes from one mine which has an expected life of 5 to 8 yr. Owing to the critical nature of mercury and its limited sources of supply, it is important to examine the availability of mercury from both present and potential sources. The Bureau's primary objectives for this study were to evaluate the availability of mercury from market economy countries 6 and to assess domestic mercury resources in relation to those of other market economy countries. These availability determinations can be used in the development or modifica- tion of a domestic minerals policy and can be of direct benefit to programs concerned with mineral stockpile assessment, minerals exploration, extraction technology research, tax restructing, substitute mineral studies, and land utilization. No comprehensive world mercury resource studies have been conducted since the late 1950's, and no recent comprehensive availability studies on mercury have been published. This study consolidates past work (9, 11) with more recent data from numerous sources and sum- marizes available industry data on mercury as of January 1984. Current and potential availability data for mercury are presented in a series of supply curves with appropriate explanatory text. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Domestic production and cost data for the deposits assessed in this study were developed at Bureau of Mines Field Operations Centers at Denver, CO, and Spokane, WA. The following personnel contributed data used in this study: Alan G. Hite, physical scientist, Intermountain Field Opera- tions Center, Denver, CO, and David A. Benjamin, George A. Gale, Nathan T. Lowe, Michael Sokaski, and Thomas M. Sweeney, all at the Western Field Operations Center, Spokane, WA. Production and cost data for other countries were col- lected through a Bureau of Mines contract with Pincock, Allen, & Holt, Inc. of Tucson, AZ. Selected resource and pro- duction data were provided by Linda Carrico, Bureau of Mines commodity specialist, Washington, DC. Technical assistance was provided by Victor Botts, manager, Nevada Operations, Placer U.S., Inc. COMMODITY OVERVIEW CONSUMPTION AND USES Mercury, also known as quicksilver, is one of the few metals that is liquid at ordinary temperatures. Other im- portant properties that influence its marketability include its high density, uniform volume expansion, high electrical conductivity, ability to alloy readily, high surface tension, chemical stability, and toxicity of its compounds. Mercury's unique characteristics have enabled it to be used historically in a wide variety of applications, including electrical apparatus, industrial and control instrumenta- tion, agriculture, pharmaceuticals, paints, pigments, elec- trolytic preparation of chlorine and caustic soda, and dental supplies. Owing to the toxic nature of mercury vapor and certain compounds, its use in some of these areas has been restricted in recent years. Since world mercury use patterns are not available, the domestic uses of mercury are outlined in figure 1. Worldwide consumption data by end use are not available. However, it is estimated that approximately 220,000 flasks of mercury were consumed in 1983 (2). De- mand will most likely increase more rapidly in developing countries than in industrialized nations. Based upon an- ticipated growth in world mercury consumption, the forecasted world demand in 2000 is estimated to be between 212,000 and 356,000 flasks. The most probable demand is 241,000 flasks in 1990 and 276,000 flasks in 2000, based on an average annual growth rate of 1.4 pet (2). This growth rate is based on best available published data; recent data indicates that the growth rate may in fact be lower. A sum- mary of anticipated mercury demand is presented in table 1. SUBSTITUTES Other materials may be substituted for mercury in selected application, but for those uses that require mercury's unusual combination of physical and chemical properties, there have been few satisfactory substitutes. Nickel- cadmium batteries may replace mercury batteries in cer- 5 Italicized numbers in parentheses refer to items in the list of references preceding the appendix. "Market economy countries, as defined by the Bureau of Mines include all countries except the centrally planned economy countries of Albania, Bulgaria, China, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Kampuchea, North Korea, Laos, Mongolia, Poland, Romania, the U.S.S.R., and Vietnam. Control instalments Figure 1.— Mercury use distribution. Table 1.— Summary of domestic and foreign mercury demand forecasts, 76-pound flasks (2) Probable 2000 1983 1990 2000 Low High Domestic: Primary 35.664 42.000 39.000 14.000 64.000 Secondary 13,474 6,000 7,000 3,000 12.000 Foreign: Pnmary 152.000 170.000 200,000 164,000 236,000 Secondary 19,000 23.000 30,000 31,000 44.000 World: Pnmary 187.664 212,000 239,000 178,000 300.000 Secondary 32.474 29.000 37,000 34,000 56,000 Total 220.138 241.000 276.000 212,000 356,000 tain electrical applications. Solid state control devices can replace mercury in some control instrumentation. In chlor- alkali processing, the diaphragm cell is gradually replac- ing the mercury- cell. Sodium vapor lamps are widely used instead of mercury vapor lamps for lighting. Sulfa drugs, iodine, other antiseptics and disinfectants are possible mer- cury* substitutes in pharmaceutical use. Porcelain and plastic replace mercury in some dental uses. Plastic and cop- per oxide paints have been used to protect ship hulls, and organic mildewcides are being substituted in latex paints. RECYCLING Environmental concerns have led to increased use of recycling of scrap mercury at the expense of prime virgin material. Secondary mercury is generally 99.99 pet pure and produced by redistillation. Virtually all mercury can be reclaimed from mercury cell-chlor-alkali plants, electrical apparatus, and control instruments when plants or equip- ment are dismantled or scrapped. Reduced demand for chlorine has closed a number of chlor-alkali plants worldwide; conversion of these plants to other processes has recently released a significant quantity of secondary mer- cury on the market. The importance of recycled mercury is illustrated by current domestic consumption patterns, where secondary mercury accounted for 28 pet of the reported domestic consumption in 1983 (12). PRODUCTION HISTORY For more than 2,300 yr, mercury has been recovered from cinnabar (HgS) deposits throughout the world. While mercury is found in varying amounts in most rocks, recoverable concentrations of mercury are more scarce. Prior to 1850, three mining districts dominated world mer- cury production: Almaden in Spain, Idria in Yugoslavia, and Santa Barbara in Peru. Four major districts, Monte Amiata in Italy, California in the United States, Almaden, and Idria, have supplied most of the world's mercury pro- duction since 1850. The Almaden area has produced mercury since 400 B.C. Records dating back to 1500 show production of over 7 million flasks of mercury through 1957 from Almaden (9), or almost three times as much as that of any other area of the world. Currently, about 23 pet of world production comes from the Almaden district. Mercury in the Idria district of Yugoslavia was first discovered about 1470. Since then, the Idria Mine has pro- duced over 2.5 million flasks of mercury through 1957 and ranked second in the world for total mercury production. The Idria Mine was closed from 1977 to 1982 owing to a depressed market. The Santa Barbara district, which included the Santa Barbara Mine in Peru, was for many years the world's leading mercury producer. From 1566 to 1790, this district produced 1.47 million flasks of mercury. By the end of the 18th century, reserves were almost depleted; since then only negligible amounts of mercury have been produced. In terms of total output, Santa Barbara has been ranked as the fourth largest mercury mine in the world (9). Almost all Italian mercury production came from the Monte Amiata district. While mercury occurrences in this area were known and mined by the Etruscans as long ago as 400 B.C., modern production did not start until 1868. The extent of the mineralization was such that as reserves in individual mines were depleted, other mines in adjacent areas opened up for production. Italy led the world in mer- cury production in the 1920's, when the Idria Mine was part of Italian territory. Between 1900 and 1957, Italian mer- cury production from the Monte Amiata district exceeded 2 million flasks. The Abbadia San Salvatore Mine, the northernmost producing mine in the district, was the larg- est and most consistent producer in Italy in recent years, until its closure in 1982 due to economic factors. Production of mercury in the United States began in California about 1850. California mines produced about 80 pet of the total mercury mined in the United States from 1850 to 1981, and almost all of the domestic mercury mined from 1850 to 1898. Much of California's mercury production came from two mines, the New Almaden Mine and New Idria Mine. The New Almaden Mine was the first mine in North America to produce mercury; more than 90 pet of its production oc- curred between 1850 and 1900. Earliest production came from ore averaging 37 pet Hg. At the height of production in 1865, ore grade had dropped to 18 pet, and by 1895 the grade was less than 1 pet. During its life, New Almaden produced over 1.05 million flasks of mercury (11). The New Idria Mine opened in 1853, but unlike New Almaden, two- thirds of its production occurred after 1900. The New Idria Mine produced over 600,000 flasks of mercury until its closure in 1972 (/). In recent years, declining ore grade, low prices, and lack of demand have forced the closure of all California mercury 350 300- 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 Figure 2.— Summary of production and consumption of mercury. 1975 1985 mines. Domestic mercury needs have been partially met by the opening in 1975 of the McDermitt Mine in Nevada. Figure 2 summarizes the recent history of world mer- cury production. Domestic production and consumption for the same period are shown for comparison purposes. Mercury production reached a high during World War II, but while world production managed to recover from the postwar decline in production, U.S. production never fully recovered. As shown in figure 2, the United States supplied approximately 14 pet of world production in 1960; by 1970, U.S. production had fallen to 10 pet of the world's total. Declining ore grade and high production costs, particularly for California operations, never allowed domestic produc- tion to meet the growing U.S. demand. In 1960, U.S. pro- duction met 71 pet of domestic consumption; by 1970, domestic production was only able to meet 44 pet of con- sumption. Because of increasing awareness of mercury tox- icity, pollution, and use of substitutes since 1970, world mer- cury demand has decreased. U.S. production also dipped in the early 1970's because of increased environmental con- cern but stabilized in the mid-1970's owing to the emergence of the McDermitt Mine. At present, U.S. mine production is approximately 13 pet of the world mine production and supplies 50 pet of domestic consumption. The remainder is either imported or supplied by secondary domestic sources. While low mercury prices, increased energy and labor costs, and environmental problems have forced the reduc- tion or cessation of mercury production from market economy counties, mines in centrally planned economy (CPE) countries have achieved world prominence in recent years. Production in CPE countries was 20 pet of the world total in 1960, 25 pet in 1970, and 43 pet in 1980. In 1983, production from CPE countries amounted to 46 pet of world production of mercury. MARKET AND PRICING HISTORY The product of most mercury mines is cinnabar, which is commonly processed to recover 99.9-pct-pure mercury metal (prime virgin). Mercury is sold on the basis of 76-lb flasks. This unit of measure originated in Spain and has been accepted as a worldwide standard since Spain has been the world's leading mercury producer for centuries. There are no uniform market specifications for mercury (6). The average New York dealers' price for prime virgin mercury as of January 1984 was $304.48 per flask. Other grades are produced occasionally by multiple distillation or other means to reduce impurities, at a correspondingly higher market price. Mercury price has fluctuated widely because of erratic demand and overproduction. Domestic prices have also been influenced by environmental regulations, increased recycl- ing, and imports from large, low-cost foreign producers. A TOO 600 500 400 or a > cr => O or UJ 300 200 :■: - o 1900 1 I I 1 KEY 1 1 1 / 1914, World Wor I 2 1916, British end emborgo 3 1918, War Industries Board attempts to stabilize price 4 1922, Industrial boom 5 1928, Spanish-Italian mercury cartel formed 6 1929, Stock morket crash 7 1932, Rumors of cartel breakup /22 8 1933, Cartel continues to sell 9 1936, Spanish Civil War 10 1937, Overimportation by United States II 1939, War buildup in Europe - 12 1940, World War II 13 1942, OPA ceiling prices set 14 1944, High U.S. production 15 1945, Development of mercuric oxide battery /2 9 16 1948, Cortel boosts price 17 1950, Korean conflict, cartel disbanded, price supports instituted A Iff 1953, Large U.S. Government purchases 1 A - 19 1954, Oversupply, price supports reduced 20 1957, U.S. Government reestablishes price supports \/24 \ \ 21 1963, Italians set floor price, large mercury sales to Eastern Bloc countries 22 1967, Low Almoden production 23 1969, Pollution questions raised 1 /25 vc \ 24 1971, EPA regulations proposed (? \ 25 1972, EPA bans mercury paint use, U.S. S.R. floods mercury morket . ?K 26 1973, Worldwide restrictions on mercury use and discharge \/\ \i 27 1974, Creation of ASS IMER J\ J& 7 28 1976, Restricted mercury scales / \y 29 1982, Numerous mine closures ,, 18k \ l2 \ X f^/ / Z / 5 "\ \ \ //I5 \ / / 3 // 6 \ / x/ \ / \ / \ 5 \\ / V ^28 - - — ^J ^% \> 1 1 1 1 1 i i 1 1920 1930 1940 1950 I960 Figure 3.— Mercury market price history, 1900 to present. I970 I980 I990 summary of the mercury price history since 1900 is shown in figure 3. In the early 20th century, mercury demand was highest during periods of peak industrial activity. Prices were high during World War I, the 1920's industrial boom, and World War II, but when demand decreased, as in the postwar years, mercury prices decreased dramatically. By 1950, the price of mercury has decreased to its lowest level since the Depression. At that time, prices were bolstered by increased industrialization resulting from the Korean conflict and price supports instituted by the U.S. Government. During the mid-1960's, the mercury price rose to an all-time high of $570 per flask, owing in part to Italian price regulation and large mercury demand by Eastern Bloc countries. Prices in the early 1970's were influenced by weak U.S. de- mand, increased environmental regulation, and large Spanish and Italian inventories. Low prices and high min- ing and environmental pollution control costs led to the closure of many low-grade domestic and Canadian proper- ties. The withholding of mercury by Spanish and Italian producers from North American markets coincided with the 1976 price reversal. Because of tighter market controls as a result of the policies of the newly created mercury pro- ducers association, ASSIMER, mercury prices have gradual- ly risen in recent years to a January 1984 price of approx- imately $300 per flask. In spite of this improvement, en- vironmental concerns continue to dampen growth in domestic consumption, especially in paints, agriculture, pharmaceuticals, and the chlor-alkali industry (12). A com- bination of low prices, insufficient demand, large inven- tories, and high production costs suspended mercury pro- duction at the Italian mercury mines in 1983. At present, the McDermitt Mine is the only primary U.S. mercury producer. IDENTIFICATION AND SELECTION OF DEPOSITS There are over 1,300 known mercury occurrences throughout the world, and many more areas with possible mercury content <9>. It is not feasible to perform complete economic analyses on all known occurrences. Of the 22 deposits investigated in this study, the 15 deposits with the most significant resource potential have been evaluated. Depositis considered for economic evaluation have at least 600 flasks contained mercury. Properties were selected by the Bureau with the aim of including key deposits that supply at least 85 pet of current production from market economy countries. Significant developing, explored, and past producing deposits were also included. Domestic deposits considered for evaluation, but not included in this study because they did not meet the selection criteria, are listed in appendix A. The 15 mercury deposits (table 2) in 7 market economy countries selected for this study account for more than 85 pet of the demonstrated mercury resources for all market economy countries. Figure 4 shows the loca- tions of these deposits. Deposits in market economy coun- tries not included in this study are considered insignificant on a worldwide scale. An exception would be the Idria Mine in Yugoslavia, which was excluded due to the inaccessibility of detailed data. Resource estimates were made at the demonstrated level according to the mineral resource classification system developed by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Bureau of Mines (fig. 5) (13). Using this classification system, demonstrated resources are defined as the in situ measured plus indicated tonnages that make up the reserve base. Resource quantity and grade were determined from site in- spections, drilling data, mine workings, and sampling. The reserve base includes resources that are currently economic (reserves) and marginally economic (marginal reserves), and some that are currently subeconomic (subeconomic resources). Table 2.— Deposits selected for evaluation Deposit and location Ownership Status 1 Mining type 2 Algeria: Ismail M'Rasma Canada: Pinchi Lake Italy: Abbadia S. Salvatore Selvena Philippines: Palawan Quicksilver Spain: Almaden Turkey: Halikoy Karaburun-lzmir Karareis Konya Area United States: B and B Mine Gibraltar McDermitt Study Butte SONAREM (Government owned) ..do COMINCO, Ltd SAMIM (Government owned) ..do Palawan Quicksilver Mines, Inc. Arrayanes, S.A. (Government owned) Etibank (Government owned) Undetermined 4 ..do Etibank (Government owned) Private individual Undetermined 4 Placer U.S., Inc Sanger Investment Co. p S p S N S-U N U N U N S P S-U P 3 u N s N u PS u N s N u P s N u !N = not producing as of January 1984; P = producing as of January 1984. 2 S = surface; U = underground; for deposits not producing, mining type is proposed based on past history, geology, and technology. Operations producing at limited rate for internal use only. Ownership undetermined since property either has been abandoned or is involved in litigation. % VV4 wft>-:. ( / KEY Almaden, Spain V>v 2 M'Rasma, Algeria \ A ^ i 3 McDermitt, United States / n r^Xn 4 Halikoy, Turkey ' U ~s w [ } 5 Konya Area, Turkey \ \ * 6 Ismail, Algeria 7 Selvena, Italy i^-\ / 8 Pinchi Lake, Canada \y 9 Abbadia S. Salvatore, Italy V / s/ A 10 Gibraltar, United States cr ^J? II Karareis, Turkey cr 12 Karaburun-lzmir, Turkey 13 Palawan Quicksilver, Phili ppines 14 Study Butte, United States 15 BSB Mine, United States <^L- cr 3 50 UJ 40- 30 20 II 1 ■ N Year preproduction development begins --\ / \ / i l 1 1 KEY "• $ «jOU \ Jan. lyoH .p/TiasKj < $ 1,700 (Jan. 1984 $/f lask) \\ NX NX \\ i i i 1 1 1 1 /V+2 /V+4 /V+6 /V + 8 YEAR /V+IO /V+12 /V+14 /V + 16 Figure 10.— Annual availability from nonproducing deposits at various prices. with 103,500 flasks of mercury produced from market economy countries in 1983. By the end of 1992, production would decrease to 85,000 flasks of mercury per year, if resources from deposits having total production costs be- tween $500 to $600 per flask are depleted by the end of that year. This decrease may be offset if resources currently con- sidered inferred are further explored and proven, thereby increasing the demonstrated reserve base. From 1992 through 2000, mercury availability remains stable at 85,000 flasks per year. Similarly, approximately 114,000 flasks of mercury are available between 1984 and 1988 at a production cost of less than $300 per flask. This is sufficient to meet the 1983 production rate of 103,500 flasks per year from market economy countries. Availability goes down to 80,000 flasks per year by 1990 and remains at this level until at least 2000. Much of this decrease in primary mercury availability could be offset by increased sales from stockpiles or use of mercury from secondary sources. At the present mercury market price, deposits evaluated in this study supply approximately 59 pet of current world production of primary mercury. The remainder is supplied by centrally planned economy countries or countries with small production not evaluated in this study. In 1990, deposits considered in this study would only be able to pro- vide 34 pet of probable demand of 233,000 flasks (table 1). By 2000, only 27 pet of the probable demand (295,000 flasks) would be available from deposits with total production costs less than $300 per flask. Additional mercury resources would need to be defined at much higher production costs to meet the anticipated demand in 2000. Generally, nonproducing deposits have much higher production costs than producing properties. This is due in part to the higher investments that are required and to the generally lower ore grade. The average ore grade of non- producing deposits is approximately one third of that for producing deposits. Construction of annual availability curves for these nonproducing properties is based on the assumption that preproduction development would begin in the year N. Past experience indicates that 1 or 2 yr would be required from the year development begins before any production could occur. Annual availability of mercury from nonproducing deposits is shown in figure 10. No mercury from these deposits is available at the current market price of approximately $300 per flask, although one property has a production cost of less than $350 per flask and has the potential of recovering 7,200 flasks per year through year N+7 should market conditions merit its reopening. Most of the mercury from nonproducers can be recovered at costs ranging from $500 to $1,000 per flask. Approxi- mately 61,000 flasks become available in years N+2 through N+5 at a production cost of less than $650 per flask, while a total of 69,000 flasks is available at costs less than $1,000 per flask for the same interval. Within the same period, for costs ranging from $1,000 to $1,700 per flask, an additional 6,000 flasks become available for a total of 75,000 flasks at a cost of less than $1,700 per flask. Mercury available from nonproducing deposits decreases rapidly from years N+6 through N+9. At this point, only 30,000 flasks of mercury are available at costs less than $650 per flask. This quantity continues to be available until 2V+15, the last year of the analysis period. To meet anticipated future demand, additional mercury production is required to supplement those properties cur- rently producing. Assuming a demand of 233,000 flasks in 1990, producing operations could potentially supply 36 pet at costs up to $600 per flask; deposits not currently produc- ing could supply an additional 30 pet at costs up to $1,000 per flask. The remaining one-third would have to be sup- plied from either centrally planned economy countries, from Government or industry stockpiles, or from recycled mercury. Actual annual availability could vary from anticipated availability as market conditions change. Factors that would affect such a change include varied production of ex- isting mines, nonproducing deposits coming into production, discovery of additional deposits, and reclassification of in- ferred resources as demonstrated. 17 FACTORS AFFECTING AVAILABILITY Factors that could affect mercury availability are infla- tion, labor, and energy costs. These factors were analyzed to determine the magnitude of effect on mercury avail- ability. Based upon these analyses, the relative effect was very small. The effect of inflation on mercury availability is negligi- ble. A 25-pct increase in capital costs as a result of infla- tion results in a decrease in available mercury of 0.9 pet; a 50-pct increase results in a 2.4-pct decrease in available mercury at a cost of $1,000 per flask. At a total production cost of $600 per flask, a 10- or 15-pct increase in operating cost results in a decrease in availability of 22,000 flasks from a base of 2.6 million flasks; a 25-pct increase results in a decrease of 53,000 flasks at $600 per flask. The effects of changes in labor or energy costs on mer- cury availability were also found to be negligible. At $600 per flask, mercury availability decreased 0.8 pet for both 10- and 15-pct increases in labor costs. The effects of energy increases on mercury availability were similar to those for labor. Stockpiled and secondary mercury sources should also be considered in mercury availability discussions. Owing to mercury's limited sources of supply, many countries have considerable stockpiles of mercury, which may be used to meet internal mercury demand requirements should inter- nal supply or import problems arise. In the United States, for example, 12,786 flasks of mercury were imported in 1983 while the U.S. stockpile contained 178,315 flasks (2). In the event of a total disruption of all imported sources of mer- cury, the stockpile, if maintained at the 1983 level, represents a potential 14 yr supply at 1983 levels to supple- ment domestic production. Currently, efforts are being made to reduce the mercury stockpile inventory to 10,500 flasks, an effort that influences both short- and long-term domestic supply patterns. Primary mercury price patterns also may significantly affect mercury recovery from secondary mercury sources (recycling and byproduct recovery). A significant increase in primary mercury price could result in increased recovery of mercury from secondary and byproduct sources. Current trends indicate, however, that the relative proportions of mercury recovery from primary and secondary sources should be relatively stable, barring any major changes in recovery technology or mercury prices. CONCLUSIONS There has been little change in mercury mining and processing technology in recent years. A greater change has occurred in mercury use patterns where technological changes in mercury battery design, more efficient chlor- alkali cells, and improvements in the substitute diaphragm cell have begun to reduce primary mercury consumption. Environmental concerns have provided impetus for more efficient recycling practices. Recycled mercury will un- doubtedly make up a significant portion of mercury supply in the future. The mercury industry appears to be stabilizing after a period of low demand and depressed market price brought about in part by increased environmental concerns and use of substitutes. Although prime virgin mercury consumption appears to be decreasing slightly, there are few indications that producers are curtailing output. Excess production from principal market economy countries is being stock- piled; most production from centrally planned economy countries is being consumed internally. At present, the $300 per flask price appears stable. Production is reduced or cur- tailed for those operations that repeatedly incur costs above this level; a market price well above this level would encourage increased mercury production. Demonstrated in situ resources of mercury from market economy countries amount to approximately 25 million tons of ore from which 4.6 million flasks of mercury are poten- tially recoverable utilizing present technology. In light of prevailing economic conditions, it is estimated that these demonstrated resources could supply mercury at least un- til 2000 at proposed production levels. Mercury from pro- ducing properties operating at costs less than $600 per flask would be sufficient to meet market economy production needs at current production rates until 1988. Mercury availability could be greatly increased as known mercury occurrences, with identified tonnages containing over 17 million flasks, are further explored and resources upgraded to the demonstrated level. Countries with the greatest future mercury potential include Spain, China, the U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia, Italy, and the United States (primarily Califor- nia, Nevada, and Alaska). Domestic mercury requirements will become much more dependent on foreign sources when the only domestic primary mercury producer exhausts its reserves within the next 5 to 8 yr. Demonstrated domestic resources are not suf- ficient to meet anticipated domestic demand; current pro- duction levels could only be maintained if (1) exploration work delineated additional demonstrated resources, (2) higher market price justified mining of low-grade, high-cost deposits, or (3) high environmental pollution control costs could be acceptable. It is unlikely that mercury prices will reach high enough levels to justify reopening or develop- ment of other domestic resources in the near future. Foreign dependency could be lessened through the use of mercury from Government and industry stockpiles and secondary sources. Approximately 2.5 million flasks, or 54 pet of the total available mercury, as determined in this study, could be economically recovered at the January 1984 market price of approximately $300 per flask from operating mines in Spain, Algeria, and the United States. If mercury costs reach $600 per flask, 96 pet of the total available mercury, or an additional 2 million flasks, would become available from producing and nonproducing deposits. Based upon forecast demand levels, assuming an annual growth rate of 1.4 pet, mercury from market economy coun- tries recoverable at a total production cost of $300 per flask would supply only 33 pet of total world demand in 1990. Market economy countries could supply only 29 pet of an- ticipated world demand by 2000. To meet demand re- quirements, additional properties would need to come on- line to supplement producers at higher mercury costs, or a greater percentage of mercury could be purchased from centrally planned economy countries. Mercury production from these countries has increased in recent years. These demand projections could change significantly, however, if the projected growth rate does not come about owing to a decrease in mercury demand. 18 REFERENCES 1. Bailey, E. H., A. L. Clark, and R. M. Smith. Mercury. Ch. in United States Mineral Resources. U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Paper 820, 1973, pp. 401-414. 2. Carrico, L. C. Mercury. Ch. in Mineral Facts and Problems, 1985 edition. BuMines preprint B 675, 1985, 10 pp. 3. Clement, G. K., Jr., R. L. Miller, P. A. Seibert, L. Avery, and H. Bennett. Capital and Operating Cost Estimating System Manual for Mining and Beneficiation of Metallic and Nonmetallic Minerals Except Fossil Fuels in the United States and Canada. BuMines Spec. Publ., 1980, 149 pp. 4. Davidoff, R. L. Supply Analysis Model (SAM): A Minerals Availability System Methodology. BuMines IC 8820, 1979, 45 PP- 5. Davis, F. F., and E. H. Bailey. Mercury. Ch. in Mineral and Water Resources of California. CA Div. Mines and Geol. Bull. 191, 1966, pp. 247-254. 6. Drake, H. J. Mercury. Ch. in Mineral Facts and Problems, 1980 Edition. BuMines B 671, 1981, pp. 563-574. 7. Mining Magazine (London). Almaden - World's Largest Mer- cury Mine. V. 118, No. 2, 1968, pp. 80-91. 8. McDermitt Mine - the U.S.A. 's Largest Producer of Mercury. V. 146, No. 7, 1982, p.261. 9. Pennington, J. W. Mercury. A Materials Survey. BuMines IC 7941, 1959, 92 pp. 10. Placer Development Limited (British Columbia, Canada). 1983 Annual Report, p. 29. 11. U.S. Bureau of Mines. Mercury Potential of the United States. BuMines IC 8252, 1965, 376 pp. 12. Mineral Commodity Summaries 1984. Mercury. January 1984, pp. 98-99. 13. U.S. Geological Survey. Principles of a Resource/Reserve Classification for Minerals. U.S. Geol. Surv. Circ. 831, 1980, 5 pp. APPENDIX A Domestic deposits considered for evaluation but not in- cluded in this study since deposit selection criteria were not met are California— Buena Vista, Gambonini, Guadalupe, Knoxville, Mt. Jackson, and New Almaden; Texas— Fresno. APPENDIX B Numerous areas have either recovered mercury in the past or are reported to contain mercury. Although numerous occurrences are documented, deposits with demonstrated resources are rare. Domestic areas with significant mercury potential (11) that require additional exploration work to delineate resources are- Alaska: Bristol Bay region, Kuskokwim River region, Seward Peninsula region, Yukon River region. California: Adelaide district, Altoona district, Cambria- Oceanic district, Clear Lake district, East Mayacmas district, Guerneville district, Knoxville district, New Almaden district, New Idria district, Petaluma district, Stayton district, Sulphur Springs Mountain district, West Mayacmas district, Wilbur Springs district. Idaho: Valley County district, Washington County district. Nevada: Antelope Springs district, Fish Lake Valley district, Goldbanks district, Ivanhoe district, Opalite district, Union district. Oregon: Crook County district, Lake County district. Texas: Buena Suerte district, Terlingua district. i *'-^ •« "■'■■' % /^*-\. /«-\ /.«•> A-^\" <-°*WV *t* <» ^, ° *\ "*.To» .0- ^£ cy * ju: V sj^'* c\ xO ^ ^ * fc ^ ... **TV 4? .. > V % c »i^* ^ aO y ol? • <♦ .. = 4 .0 o . » * A lP^ V 4 o^ iv .r ,^ ^. ^ ^o^ o * OK o' 0' V % **^L'* c\ <0^ .« » A V -^ : ' ^>* ^ ^ °^ _ .•••« + »°*^ 4Q. ►♦ »°-nK ^ " , * .<* -.. ^ -^ A <^ *^7.^ . V v .*!^L', V aO & %<++ :m--\ \. a"^ ►„- * V ^» ** V V^ »^5 ■ * O H ' a0 s& *%>, • % O + ' * ■*• " "V- \v -^ " " A~ "O \ v ^4. " " u Kffl