University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A financial study of basic factors influencing construction as exemplified by selected non-ferrous metal production

(USC Thesis Other)

A financial study of basic factors influencing construction as exemplified by selected non-ferrous metal production

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content A FINANCIAL STUDY OF BASIC FACTORS INFLUENCING
CONSTRUCTION AS EXEMPLIFIED BY SELECTED NON-
FERROUS METAL PRODUCTION
A Thesis
Presented to
the Faculty of the School of Commerce
The University of Southern California
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Business Administration
by
James Albert Curran
June 1956
UMI Number: EP43427
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI'
Dissertation Publishing
UMI EP43427
Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 4 8 1 0 6 -1 3 4 6
torn MBA ' 5 < *
This thesis* written by
James Albert Curran
under the guidance of the Faculty Committee*
and approved by all its members* has been
presented to and accepted by the Faculty of
the School of Commerce in partial fulfill
ment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Business Administration
Date
Approved
1
2
2
2
3
if
if
if
if
5
5
6
9
10
13
l i f
15
18
18
18
TABLE OP CONTENTS
CHAPTER
I. THE PROBLEM, DEFINITION OP TERMS, AND
REVIEW OP THE LITERATURE...................
The problem .... .......................
Statement of the problem.................
Importance of the study . ...............
Scope of the study.......................
Definition of terras used...................
Minerals and ores........................
Non-ferrous metals.......................
Primary and secondary metals.............
Mining, milling and refining.............
Review of the literature...................
Business Week.............................
The Constructor .........................
The Paley Report.........................
Bureau of Mines pamphlets ...............
Engineering and Mining Journal...........
United States News and World Report . . .
II. THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY AND THE NON-PERROUS
METALS INDUSTRY ............................
The construction industry .................
Importance of construction...............
iv
CHAPTER PAGE
Effect of the construction industry on
the national economy......................18
Subdivisions of the construction
industry.................................. 19
The non-ferrous metals industry ........... 21
Identification of the industry............. 21
Size of the industry........................22
Importance.................................. 22
III. FACTORS INFLUENCING CONSTRUCTION TRENDS . . . 2l+
The outlook for Gross National Product. . . 2i|
The uses and demand for the metals...........26
Metal reserves................................ 30
Metal supply and production facilities. . . 31
Security considerations of the United States. 33
Stockpile requirements......................33
Premium price plans........................3^1-
Fast tax write-off..........................35
Guaranteed markets..........................3&
Imports, exports and tariffs................. 3&
Market price.................................. 39
Cost and technical problems of extracting
the metal from the ore..................... 1|2
Construction costs............................ i j . 5
V
CHAPTER PAGE
IV. ANALYSIS OP CONSTRUCTION TRENDS FOR TWO
GROWTH METALS: ALUMINUM .AND URANIUM........... 1+8
Aluminum...................... i +8
Importance...................................... 1+8
Properties......................................1+9
Uses........................................... 1+9
Ore production. .........................50
Refining process............................... 52
Government subsidy............................. 52
World production............................... 53
Forecasted additional production..............5 l | -
Gonstruction costs............................. 51+
Construction potential.........................55
Uranium............................................55
Importance and uses...........................55
Properties...................................... 55
Ores.............................................56
Refining........................................ 57
Production...................................... 58
Forecast of production for non-military
use. . . 60
Forecast for military u s e .................... 60
Forecast summary............................... 6l
vi
CHAPTER PAGE
Construction costs. . . .....................6l
Construction forecast ..................... 62
V. ANALYSIS OP CONSTRUCTION TRENDS FOR TWO
MAJOR METALS? ZINC AND LEAD.................. 63
Zinc............................................ 63
Importance and use........................... 63
Ores and reserves.............. 6I 4.
Processing and reduction.....................6 1 ) .
Supply and consumption................ 65
United States government programs ........ 67
Consumption and production forecasts. . . . 68
Construction forecast........................69
Lead...................... 70
Importance and use...........................70
Ores and reserves...........................71
Processing and reduction............ 72
Production................................... 72
Consumption................................7 b
United States government programs..........7b
Consumption and production forecast .... 75
Construction forecast........................76
vii
CHAPTER PAGE
VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS....................... 77
Review of the literature.............. 77
The construction industry.............. 78
The non-ferrous metals industry. ...... 79
Factors influencing construction trends. . . 80
Aluminum and uranium.................... 82
Zinc and lead........................... 83
Conclusion.............................. 8I 4.
BIBLIOGRAPHY......................................... 86
LIST OP TABLES
TABLE PAGE
I. A Breakdown of New Construction in the
United States in 1951+...........................20
II. Predictions of United States Demand for
Major Non-Ferrous Metals ..................... 28
III. United States Consumption and Sources of
Supply of Major Non-Ferrous Metals ........... 38
IV. Market Prices of Major Non-Ferrous Metals--
End of 1955......................................1+1
V. Typical Analysis of Ore Milling Costs for
a Uranium Mill................................. 1+1+
VI. Construction Costs for Mills and Refineries
in the Non-Ferrous Metals Industry............1+?
VII. World Production of Bauxite, 1951+................51
I LIST OP FIGURES
i
I
I
! FIGURE PAGE
1. Wages, Material Prices and Construction
Trends...................................... 11
2* Total Construction Compared with Gross
National Product.......... 12
3. Growth of Gross National Product, 1910 to
1955, and Projection 195£ to 197$ .......... 27
I
CHAPTER I
! THE PROBLEM* DEFINITION OF TERMS, AND
i
| REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
i
I
The post-depression era of the twentieth century
j has seen a tremendous growth of the national economy of
| the United States* The Gross National Product has in-
i 1
I creased from 72*2 billion dollars in 1935 to 387*3
j p
! billion dollars in 1955* almost five and one-half times
I
j in twenty years. During the same period, total construc
tion, government and private, increased from 7*5 billion
| dollars in 1935 to 57 billion dollars in 1955*^ over
j seven and one-half times. It is worthwhile examining the
j outlook for the next twenty years, whether it can equal
I the spectacular record of 1935 to 1955*
i The financial man must have some kind of forecast
as the basis of his long-run planning. But he cannot, or
should not extrapolate the 1935 to 1955 curve to 1975*
' He might lean on the published forecasts by business
I ^-United States Department of Commerce, Business
I Statistics, 1953 Biennial Edition (Washington, D.C.:
| United States Government Printing Office, 1954)* P« 7*
I 2
i "New Year to Set Some Records," United States
News and World Report, January 6, 195o* p. 2£.
3"Total Construction Compared with Gross National
Product," The Constructor, January 1956* P* 3*
j publications* Many of these are excellent, but it would
; be folly to rely on these forecasts without a knowledge o
! the factors that were combined to produce the predictions
| With this knowledge he would be in a position to assess
| the validity of such forecasts.
j I. THE PROBLEM
Statement of the problem* A complete study of all
the factors affecting the national economy takes the
energy of many economists in the service of the United
j States Government. Such a study was not attempted here*
' The scope of this study was limited to construction, one
j part of the problem, and at the same time a major segment
j of the economy. It was the purpose of this study: (1)
1 to review the basic factors influencing construction
, trends; and (2) to forecast construction needs for the
j production of selected non-ferrous metals by the use of
these factors.
Importance of the study* Published forecasts have
; been general in nature. The Paley Report,^- for example,
i
1 looked into the forecasted consumption of minerals in
I
great detail. The contribution of this study was that
&The President’s Material Policy Commission, Re
sources, Lor Freedom. Volumes I to V (Washington, D.C.:
-- U.S. Government Printing Office, 195>2) • - - ■
3
it considered the factors for construction of facilities i
i
to meet the demand, and it translated the results into 1
dollars for certain selected metals* It is hoped that
the steps taken will be of some use as a guide to those
who wish to make similar forecasts for metals or other
products*
Scope of the study* In this study, the first step
was a review of the literature on projecting trends. The
second step was an examination of literature on the con
struction industry in general in order to get information
on factors that affect trends in the construction industry.
The construction industry was examined as to its importance
and relationship with other industries, and with the
economy of the nation as a whole. The subdivisions of the
construction industry were then examined. Industrial
construction was selected for further examination. In
order that the analysis be specific, a certain section
of industrial construction, that required for the non-
ferrous metals industry, was selected. The third step
involved an examination of the non-ferrous metals industry,
and establishment of the factors that influenced construc
tion trends in this industry. The fourth and final
step was an exemplification of the use of these factors
in forecasting the construction trends for four specific
metals, aluminum, uranium, lead, and zinc.
II. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED
Minerals and ores. The terms, mineral and ore,
are often used erroneously as synonyms. The distinction
is that a mineral is a chemical compound occurring
naturally, whereas an ore is a metal bearing mineral from
which a metal can be extracted commercially.^
Non-ferrous metals. The treatment of ores is the
concern of several large industries. The steel industry
concerns itself with the treatment of iron ore only. The
other metals are grouped together and normally referred
to as the non-ferrous metals.
Primary and secondary metals. The metals industry
has two types of producer, the producer of so-called
primary metals, and the producer of secondary metals.
Primary metals are those that are derived directly from
ores, while secondary metals are those reclaimed through
L
the processing of scrap or residues. In considering
^George S. Brady, Materials Handbook (New York;
McGraw-Hill Book Co., 19g T T ~ .
William Van Royer and Oliver Bowles, The Mineral Re-
of the World (New Yorkj Prentice HalTT"19FZ), 'p.TT
sources
5
future demands, it is necessary then, to consider what
part will be satisfied by primary metals, and what part
by the secondary metals.
Mining, milling, and refining. There are three
major steps in the extraction of metals from ores. The
first is mining, which includes all the operations of
prospecting, exploring, and removal of the ores from the j
ground. Milling is the physical process by which the
ores are concentrated by separating the valuable mineral
particles from the waste materials.^ Refining comprises
the production steps that reduce the ore to the metallic
8
form. Some few companies carry out all operations. The
usual thing is that a company concentrates on one of these '
steps.
III. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
A review was made of government reports and publica
tions, construction industry and metals-industry trade
journals, and business and world-event magazines. The
.........." "' ' ■ ........................... i
'Arthur F. Taggart and others, Elements of Ore
Dressing (New York; John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 195l).
fl
J. G. Henderson and J. M. Bates, Metallurgical
Dictionary (New York: Reinhold Publishing Corporation,
1953), P. 263.
I forecasts and reports concerned demand and supply almost
! exclusively. No relationship was established between
these forecasts and the outlook for construction. It re
mained to establish the relationship, and convert fore-
j cases for demand for certain metals into forecasts for
1 construction.
Business Week, This publication has done much to
further the cause for business forecasting. Two of the
more important articles on forecasting are summarized
I below,
i
I The September , 1955 issue has an excellent
!
| article titled, ’ ’Business Week Reports in the New Science
i
of Business Forecasting,” There are several humorous
illustrations by Charles Adams, The article observes the
”U.S. business these days is increasingly basing its major
decisions on careful and detailed economic forecasts,”
j The various techniques are first, the ’ ’loaded deck”
i
| strategy that depends on inside information, fast informa-
; tion and analysis, knowledge of limits, and spotting the
1 initial phase of a lengthy process,
| The second technique is an ’ ’Oaks from Acorns”
; strategy. This depends on extrapolation of a past trend.
The weakness is that the technique does not tell when
7
the ’ ’Something else” will come that stops the advance of
‘ the trend. Wesley C. Mitchell, formerly of the National
Bureau of Economic Research and Arthur P. Burns, Chairman
of the Presidents Council of Economic Advisors, picked a
set of twenty-one leading, coincident, and lagging indi
cators, whose movements had traded the course of the
i
' business cycle. After World War II, Geoffrey Moore
' selected twenty-one indicators, of which some were the
t
: same as Mitchell's and Burns'. Significantly, two of the
: leading series are residential building contracts and com
mercial and industrial building contracts.
I
; A third, systematic method, is the forecast of
I
i Gross National Product by examining government policies,
1
i budget estimates, the likelihood of passage of important
1 legislation and the like. One approach is by building
i
! up an econometric model of the economy. Equations are
i
i
| set up that relate the factors the economist wants to
! discover, to the factors he already knows or can estimate
easily. Many universities have set up econometric models.
Some industries have adopted a simplified version.
This article is a good prime]* for studies of trends
and forecasts. It establishes some basic principles that
were found valuable in this study. The techniques most
applicable to the subject of this study are the ”Oaks from
Acorns'* strategy plus an analysis of factors for forecast- !
ing similar to the technique described, above for forecast
i
of Gross National Product. 1
i The March 5* 1955 issue of Business Week has an
article titled "Profiles of i96 0: Businessmen Are Learning
Hew to Use Them.” It compares projections of six econ- j
I omists. The economists and the companies for -whom the
! projections were made are: (1) Julius Hirsch for Rock
1
I of Ages Corporation; (2) Gerhard Cohn for the National
\
i
1 Planning Association; (3) Grover Ensley for the United
i
States government; (I 4 .) Kenneth Beggs and the Stanford
1
Research Institute staff for Weyerhauser Timber Company;
(5) Leon Keyserling and staff for Conference on Economic ;
Progress; and (6) Dexter Keezer and McGraw-Hill staff for
; distribution to business.in general. The things fore-
i
| casted for i960 were Gross National Product, population,
1
I per capita disposable income, consumers expenditures, and
! government expenditures. The article gives a simplified
I
1
; method of making a projection of Gross National Product
j to i9 6 0;
| Divide this year’s Gross National Product by
: the present population of the United States. This
i gives you per-capita Gross National Product. Take
I the historic trend of productivity increase--tradi-
tionally 2 per cent or 2 .5 per cent yearly--and add
it to per-capita Gross National Product (as in a
compound interest problem) for the years up to i960.
9
This gives you per capita Gross National Product for
that year. To translate this back into national
Gross National Product, project trends of population
growth to i960--multiply your i960 per-capita Gross
National Product by your projected population figure.
The figure thus arrived at is probably quite valuable-
if you keep its limitations firmly in mind. The
limitations are: (1) Past trends don’t necessarily
continue into the future. (2) In most cases we don’t
even know much about past trends. Productivity
statistics are vague and incomplete. (3) There are
some very important economic factors that nobody can
chart into the future--the role of the government and
the course of world affairs among these--Still projec
tions are the best guides to the future available.
They are the only wheel in town.
The Gonstructor. The leading monthly trade publica
1
I
1 tion of the construction industry, The Constructor, con-
i tains records of monthly and yearly construction. The
| December, 195>5> issue reports on a government forecast
that there will be forty-four billion dollars in new con
struction in 1956. The January, 195>6 issue contains the
magazine's annual construction review and outlook. The
Associated General Contractors of America (AGC) expects a
j volume of sixty billion dollars in 19^6, of which forty-
! four billion dollars will be new construction and the
remainder for maintenance and repair of existing facili-
ties* No outlooks beyond one year are ventured, nor is
there any analysis of the factors as a basis for the fore-
l cast.
1
I
This magazine has several valuable graphs. One,
10
called the "Constructograph,” plots wage, material, and
construction cost trends from 1915 to the present. This
graph is reproduced in this paper as Figure 1. The Con-
structograph is a valuable historical basis on which to
forecast future costs.
A second valuable chart is one that plots total
construction compared with Gross National Product. This
! is reproduced as Figure 2. There are a number of fore
casts of Gross National Product, by the Council of
Economic Advisers and others. Relating construction to
I such forecasts could given an approximate indication of
i
the growth of construction to the same terminal date as
i
! the Gross National Product. This approach would tie in
t
| with the third, systematic method described in the
Business Week article above.
The Paley Report. This is a monumental study, in
five volumes and 819 pages, on the materials problem of
the United States and its relation to the free world.
The President’s Materials Policy Commission was appointed
by President Truman on January 22, 1951*^ William S.
j Paley was chairman of the Commission of five men, aided
j _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
j 9^he President’s Material Policy Commission,
! Resources for Freedom, Volumes I to V (Washington, D.C.s
United States Government Printing Office, 1952).
11
600-
550-
5oo-
1 +50-
1 +00-
35o-
300-
250-
200-
150-
LEGEND
Wages, 12 cities.
Construction costs.
- 1— Prices paid by contractors.
1919 1925 1930 1935 191+0 19^5 1950 1955
FIGURE 1
WAGES, MATERIAL PRICES AND CONSTRUCTION COST TRENDS
THE CONSTRUCTOR, FEBRUARY 1956
12
-6oo
Total
Construction I rH
l+o-
•H
320 *H
IS. 32
I
'3 28
\
Gross
National
Product
1
120 V > 1 in 12
i
m m
30 35 1+0 1+5
50
52
55
FIGURE 2
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COMPARED WITH GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT
THE CONSTRUCTOR. FEBRUARY 1956
13
by a staff of 117 men and women. The Commission reported !
its findings June 2, 1952, after sixteen months of re- i
search. j
Volume II, The Outlook for Key Commodities, pre
sented a long range survey (to 1975) of United States
I
I
and free world prospects for thirty key commodities, |
I
such as metallic and non-metallic minerals, chemicals and 1
rubber, which are examined in twenty separate studies.
These studies were made by industry experts. For each
metal, the study examined (a) the general demand outlook
both here and abroad; (b) the supply prospects here and
abroad; (c) the central problems that emerge, and the
main lines of action suggested for bringing supply and
demand into balance at the lowest feasible cost.-*--*- i
The Paley Report dealt chiefly with demand, general
features of supply, and policy recommendations. It did
not treat construction.
Bureau of Mines pamphlets. In 1955 > the Bureau of
Mines issued a number of pamphlets on all mineral commodi
ties. These are available from the Superintendent of
Interview with William S. Paley, ’1 United States
News and World Report, August 15, 1952. ;
-^The Presidents Material Policy Commission,
op. cit., Volume II.
| Documents for ten cents each. A flyleaf note announces
I
j that the pamphlet is a chapter from Bulletin 556, Mineral
I
i Pacts and Problems, a volume that may be purchased at a
I
i date to be announced later. Each pamphlet covers a single
mineral* The first two pages summarize the contents of
the pamphlet. The pamphlet forecasts the demand for the
I metal by i960, a five year period, as compared to the
i
i twenty-five year period of the Paley Report.
Engineering and Mining Journal* Probably the most
i
| important United States magazine covering non-ferrous
| metals and minerals is the Engineering and Mining Journal,
J It is comparable to the "Iron Age" for the steel industry,
j Each year, its February issue contains an annual survey
i
| and outlook. The February, 1955 issue covered the non-
!
i
| ferrous metals: gold, titanium, silver, aluminum, magnes-
I
. ium, copper, zinc, lead, uranium, tin and mercury. Each
| article looked at the events of 1951+ for the metal; pro-
1
| duction, demand, imports and exports, United States supply
i new uses, and a short-term outlook for 1955* 1956, and
1957.
; The August, 1951 and September, 1955 issues have
I
| complementary articles by S. G. Lasky titled, "Mineral
Industry Futures can be Predicted." Mr. Lasky, who was
a member of the Paley Commission, made predictions to 1970
for production of bituminous coal, copper, aluminum, lead,
and zinc. Mr. Lasky used these as examples of his theme
that: ;
The record of the past can provide an apprecia- !
tion of the future. Each mineral industry has its
own peculiar pattern of growth and decay controlled
by the progressive mutual adjustment of all the
political, economic and technologic factors peculiar
to it. Once the gross pattern is established, it is
changed only by some factor strong enough to initiate
[ a new cycle of growth, so that if one can determine ;
j the pattern of growth up to the present, he has a
good basis for projecting it into the future. '
The Engineering and Mining Journal lists the sell-
j ing prices of metals each month. The February, 19^5> issue
] contains a chart that lists prices, from 1897 to 19!?U>
I
of copper, lead, zinc, tin, silver, quicksilver, and
aluminum.
j The principal value of the Engineering and Mining
j Journal, from the standpoint of this study, was as a
source of production and demand figures since the Paley
Report. Its value, also, was in the reporting of changes
, of factors that affect the metals industry. For example,
, the magazine’s regular articles include “Washington Impact,*
| 1 1 Outlook,” which contains a weighted index of non-ferrous ,
i metals prices, and “Markets--Trends and Prices.”
i
United States hews and World Report. The August
l£, 1952 issue contained an interview with William S.
16
Paley, titled ’ ’Not Enough Materials for the United States.”,
Mr. Paley stressed the factor that by 1975 will have ,
to import three times as much as we did in 1950. The im
plications are that we have to become more world-minded,
that we must conserve our resources, and that we need ,
i
further development of technology. He accented as the j
solution, the increasing of imports, removal of tariff
barriers and other legal restrictions.
’ ’More Metals V/anted--Gan United States Get Enough”
is an article that appears in the September 9> 1955 issue.
It is a preview of a report by the Bureau of Mines. The
outlooks are shown in Table II, and are compared with the
outlooks made by the Paley Report. The accent is on pro
tection of domestic industry. Referring to the Paley
Report, it states:
Stress was laid on buying from abroad, on not
using up domestic ores too rapidly. The Bureau
is less worried about shortages, about husbanding
U.S. reserves. It is more concerned about protecting
domestic industry against foreign imports.
’ ’More Billions for Business Expansion” appears in
the November 25 > 1955 issue. This article has an interest
ing display that shows a comparison of $218.8 billion
invested in new plants and equipment before 1936, as com
pared to $232.6 billion spent In the years 191+6-1955*
It states that government forecasts are that industrial
17
and commercial building will be greater in 1956 than in
* 1955.
i
; The significance of the United States News and
World Report articles is in their reporting of government
forecasts of demand for metals more recent than the
Paley Report, They describe the two different policies,
| one favoring lifting of tariffs, the other favoring pro-
I
1 tection of domestic industry. The victory of one of these
, policies over the other will have a great effect on con
struction for that industry.
i
l
C H A P T E R I I
' THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY AND THE NON-FERROUS
i
i METALS INDUSTRY
I
[
I I. THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
i i
Importance of construction. The construction
industry is now the largest industry in the United States,
i
I representing 15 per cent of the Gross National Product.
It concluded 1955 with its tenth consecutive record year
1 in dollar volume with forty-two billion dollars of new
12
i construction.
i
i Effect of the construction industry on the national 1
economy. The influence of the construction industry in the
I
national economy has been recognized in pump-priming
activities of governments during depression. Many New
i
Deal agencies stimulated construction in order to provide
i both direct and secondary employment. It was recognized
that construction uses a wide variety of materials and
fabricated products and that its influence is felt in the
: economy in the effect on many extractive and processing
i
activities. Another advantage of the industry is that
| . ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ — — ...
12
Bror Nordberg, "Aggregates and Construction ,
: Volume Establishes a New Record," Rock Products, January '
i 1 9 p. 72.
i
; it affords opportunity for employment of unskilled labor
l 13
j in large numbers. ^ !
! Subdivisions of the construction industry. Table I
shows the major breakdown of the forty-two billion dollars
i of new construction. It is interesting to note the
, dominant position of private non-farm, residential con- j
struction. It is 39 P©r cent of all new construction, 51+ <
| i
1 per cent of private construction, and one and one-third ‘
times as great as all public construction. Its problems
and factors influencing construction trends are unique,
t It is the subject of many studies by economists and
financial institutions. It was by-passed as not appropri-
j ate to the objective of the study,
J Industrial construction was picked as the subdivi-
| sion to represent the construction industry. Table I shows
that, in 195b * this segment of the construction industry
amounted to some 2.1+ billion dollars, or 5.7 per cent of
j the total of new construction. Industrial construction
I
| includes new construction for the petroleum industry,
the chemical industry, the steel industry, all manufactur
ing, and the non-ferrous metals industry. The factors
•^Richard U* Ratcliff, Urban Land Economics (New (
York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., I9I+ 9) > P• I32.
TABLE I
A BREAKDOWN OF NEW CONSTRUCTION
IN THE UNITED STATES IN 195M*
I
Millions
of
Dollars**
Per Cent
of Total
Per Cent i
of Sub- j
Heading !
Total New Construction I|.2,000 100.0
1
Private Construction 30,000
71.5
1
100.0
Residential (non-farm)
l6, 3l|5 38.9
51+.2 !
Non-residential (non-farnj) 7,630 18.2
25.5
Commercial
3,055 7.3
10.2 :
Industrial 2,i|00 5.7 8.0
Other (religious, schools
9
etc.) 2,185
5 .2
7.3
Farm Construction i,k o o
3.5 5 .8
Public Utilities I}.,1+ 65 10.6
1 1 1 . 9
All Other Private 160 o.i+
0.5
Public Construction 12,000 28.5
100.0
Non-Residential Building k,220 10.1 35.2 1
Highways 5,100
9.7
34.2 :
Military 1,320
3.1
11.0
Sewer and Water 1,080 2.6 9.0
All Other Public 1,280 3.0 10.6
| ^The information in the column titled "Millions of Dollars”
■ is from an article by Bror Nordberg, "Aggregates and
j Construction Volume Establishes a New Record," Rock
Products, January 1956, p. 73*
21 :
influencing construction trends for each of these is 1
I
similar to the others. Construction for the non-ferrous
metals industry is typical of the group. It was selected
in order that the study would be specific, rather than :
i
general for all industrial construction, j
a
II. THE NON-FERROUS METALS INDUSTRY j
Identification of the industry. The non-ferrous
metals industry is a subdivision of the minerals industry.
The minerals industry may be considered to consist of the
steel industry, the non-ferrous metals industry, and the
non-metallic mineral industry. The non-ferrous metals
industry can be further subdivided, if desirable, into
four sections. The first treats the engineering metals,
so called because of their major utility— copper, aluminum,
a
lead, zinc, nickel, tin, and magnesium. A second section
consists of alloying agents--manganese, chromium, molyb
denum, vanadium, cadmium, cobalt, and titanium. A third
section, rare metals— silver, gold, platinum, tantulum,
uranium, thorium. A fourth section, the alkali metals--
sodium, lithium, and potassium.^
•^John Wulff and others, Metallurgy for Engineers
(New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., I95I 4. j, pp. 6-7.
22
j Size of the indu3try. In 1952 the minerals industry
| produced $ 13,382,000,000 worth of refined minerals. Of ;
this, the iron-ore industry produced $590»000,000, and the 1
15
non-ferrous metals industry produced $1,611,000,000.
In that year, Gross National Product was 3^8 billion |
dollars.1^ The minerals industry, then, was about per
cent of Gross National Product; and the non-ferrous metals
industry was about one-half of 1 per cent of Gross National
1
Product.
1
) 1
I '
Importance. The statistics quoted above might seem
1 to underemphasize the importance of the non-ferrous metals j
1 industry. It is a vital part of the minerals industry.
! It can share in the endorsement given to all commercial
1
j minerals by the Paley report. The Materials Commission
states the importance of minerals quite plainly:
The actions we as a Nation take or fail to take \
i in meeting materials problems in the period iramediate-
: ly ahead will affect profoundly the state of affairs
[ many years hence. If complete world peace, confidence,
15
-^United States Department of Commerce, Statistical
Abstract of the United States. 1955 (Washington, D.C.:
United States Government Printing Office, 1955), P« 737*
■ j / I
! XDUnited States Department of Commerce, Business
Statistics, 1953 Biennial Edition (Washington, D.C.:
United States Government Printing Office, 1953), p. 7.
23
and prosperity were to bless the world tomorrow, ■
the materials problem would surely not vanish nor '
necessarily become less severe— for if all the
nations of the world should achieve the same
standard of living as our own, the resulting world
need for materials would increase to six times the
present already massive consumption.17
The need for increased production of metals seemed j
vital to the President’s Material Policy Commission. It ;
l
I is worthwhile, then--from the viewpoint of the construction.
i j
i industry, the non-ferrous metals industry, and the j
I
! financial institutions concerned with these industries-- :
! to examine the factors influencing construction trends j
with an eye toward the future.
I
I
l
I
I
I - -- — --------- - -
17
'The President’s Materials Policy Commission,
op. cit., Volume I, p. 3.
C H A P T E R I I I
i
FACTORS INFLUENCING CONSTRUCTION TRENDS
i
I
The list of the major factors influencing construe-i
tion trends for the non-ferrous metals industry was de- .
veloped from the need for an orderly and consistent ap-
j proach to the analysis of such trends. The factors are ' ■
discussed in this chapter as an introduction to the analy-
j sis of the four metals in the succeeding chapters. It is
' hoped that the list will be useful to others interested
i
I in analyzing the future of the construction business and
i
| the non-ferrous metals industry.
I
I. THE OUTLOOK FOR GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT
i
I The concept of Gross National Product was discussed
j in Chapter I in the paragraphs titled, * * Business Week.**
I !
i That magazine classed Gross National Product as an American1
!
i institution that !tis probably as valuable a contribution
i to the world’s comprehension and control of its economic
! " I Q
I destinies as anything ever devised.110 The construction
i
j industry makes up such a large portion of Gross National
i
Product (some 15 per cent), that it is hardly debatable
■^“Buckling Down to Problem Solving,’ * Business Week,!
January 8, 1955, p. 108. [
25
that the volume of construction and the trends of con-
!
struction are greatly influenced by the Gross National !
i
■
Product. j
j
Predictions of Gross National Product were examined.
In his January 20, 1955 Economic Report, President Eisen- i
j hower predicted that Gross National Product would increase
I
from 1360,000,000 in 1955 to $500,000,000 in 1965.
Business Week reported on similar predictions by six
' economists.^9 Figure 3 is a plot of an historical chart,^6
! the predictions of President Eisenhower and the six
: economists, and projection of the mean of these forecasts
1 to 1975» The plot indicated a possible $725*000,000 of
i
1
I Gross National Product in 1975*
I i
j In 1955* the ratio of total construction to Gross 1
f 1
! National Product was 57 to 387* Using the same ratio in
! 1975* the prediction of total construction may be
| $105*000,000. New construction in 1975*. on the basis of
|
the 1955 ratio of l \ . 2 to 57 of total construction, may be
an estimated $78,000,000. New construction in 1975* then, '
■ will be 185-per cent of its 1955 level. It is probable
i
1 19HProfiles of 1960,” Business Week (New York:
I McGraw-Hill), March 5, 1955.
| on
i nHow Eisenhower Charts the Future,'* United States
News and World Report, January 28, 1955* P»
26
I
that new construction for the non-ferrous metals industry
1 I
t
will expand in a similar manner. This was a broad outlook
: on construction trends for the non-ferrous metals industry.
i
| II. THE USES AND DEMAND FOR THE METALS :
| I
i
| The starting point for consideration of construction,
i factors for individual metals was the assessing of the
I
I demand for the metals. Without uses and demand for these
I
J uses, there is no profit motive for construction of plants ,
|
| to provide supply. Chapter I reported that much of the
i
| literature is devoted to analysis and projection of demand ■
: for metals. This subject was adequately covered by the
\
I Paley Report and by the Bureau of Mines literature. For
convenience, pertinent information from the above-mentioned
i
I
| reports is summarized in Table II*
I Substitutions comprise a modifier of demand for an
i
I individual metal. The element of substitution was indeed
J recognized and allowed for by both the Paley Report and
| the Bureau of Mines. As an example, recent years have
| seen a threat to other metals by aluminum. At the same
I time, aluminum itself is threatened. The Bureau of Mines
| pamphlet pointed this out as follows.
i
Billions of Dollars
1 0 0 0 -
900- LEGEND
800-
700-
600-
500-
i*00-
E - Eisenhower
H - Hirseh
C - Colra
EN - Ensley
W - Weyerhauser
K - Keyserling
M - McGraw-Hill
/
/
i f f t
/
/
/
/
300-
200-
100-
15 20 25 30 35 5o 55
FIGURE 3
GROWTH OF GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT, I9IO TO 1955, AND
PROJECTION 1955 TO 1975
i
TABLE II
PREDICTIONS OF UNITED STATES DEMAND
FOR MAJOR NON-FERROUS METALS
Metal
1955
C on sump t i ona
1960 K
Demand0
1975 I
Demand0 ;
Aluminum 2,000,000 2,300,000 1 4,500,000 (P)
Copper l,l+i|0,000 1,550,000 2,500,000 (P)
Lead 1,200,000 1,275,000 1.950.000 (P)
1.450.000 (U)
Zinc 1,060,000 1,1450,000 1.600.000 (P) ;
1.650.000 (U)
Nickel 106,000 - 200,000 (P) 1
Magnesium 50,2)4.0 160,000 No prediction
(P) ;
Tin 60,700 - 118,000 (P) :
| aAll figures in this column are as of the end of 1955*
i Engineering and Mining Journal, February, 1956* Excep
tions: Magnesium figures are from Bureau of Mines pam-
: phlet, Magnesium, and are as of the end of 1953*
^l,More Metals ¥anted--Can United States Get Enough?*1
United States News and World Report, September 9* 1955,
p T T T j T
°Figures in this column marked (P) are. from the Paley
| Report. Figures marked (U) are from the United States
News and World Report article.
29
A large part of the increased us© of aluminum
has been due to its replacement of other metals* ;
It has often replaced iron and steel in the trans- I
portation industry; copper, in the electrical in
dustry; tin, in the packaging industry; copper,
iron and enamelware in the food industry, and a
wide variety of products, such as steel, wood, roof- j
ing, etc., in the building industry. These replace- ;
ments have, in most instances, provided less costly,
more efficient, and longer lived products. It is
thus obvious that other materials could be substi- 1
tuted for aluminum if this becomes necessary.
Magnesium has replaced aluminum in some applications,
and such replacements will probably increase as new
magnesium alloys with higher strengths are developed. >
The plastics may also be substituted for aluminum
in some applications.21
It was necessary to investigate whether the demand
and supply of the metal were in balance. Such a balance
or lack thereof was a key to the present and fixture needs
for additional facilities. Nickel, for example, is a metal
whose supply to the United States is almost exclusively
by imports. At the end of 1955, a critical shortage
existed. Here is a quotation from the Wall Street Journal \
on the subject. •
All told, the nation's industries are demanding
300 million pounds of nickel for 1956, compared with
216 pounds they will consume this year. Mr. Denctor
of the Commerce Department indicated nickel must be
come more plentiful before demand can be met.22
21
Bureau of Mines, Aluminum and Bauxite, A Chapter !
From Mineral Products (Washington, D.C.; United"~States
Government Printing Office, 1955)# P* l4*
^"Electro-Plating Firms Say Nickel Shortage Causes
Gray Market," The Wall Street Journal, November 5, 1955*
30 l
III. METAL RESERVES
i
<
Looking at the supply side, the first step was an
i
examination of the reserves of the metal. One question
to answer was, at the present and forecasted rates of con-j
sumption, whether the United States reserves were adequate;
i
to supply the demands in the foreseeable future. Another 1
question was whether the world's reserves were adequate
for world consumption. The Paley Report and the Bureau
! of Mines literature examined these problems. As an
I
i
i example, a Bureau of Mines pamphlet made the following
i
; comparison:
j The relatively large quantity of titanium poten
tially available as compared to the small quantity
of such metals as copper, lead, and zinc is strik-
i ing.23
The declining reserves of lead were noted by the
Paley Report. That report analyzed the supply of lead
as falling short of demand up to 1975* Adjustment in de
mand would involve either the substitution of other
materials for lead in the end uses or the consumption
of less lead without concomitant substitution.^
2^Bureau of Mines, Titanium, A Chapter From Mineral
Facts and Problems (Washington, D.C.: United States
Government Printing Office, 1955)» P* l6.
^The President's Material Policy Commission,
Resources for Freedom. Volume VI (Washington, D.G.: United
States Government Printing Office, 1952),-p. I4I+* - -
31
Current statistics on reserves are available in
the Bureau of Mines literature*
| IV. METAL SUPPLY AND PRODUCTION FACILITIES
The next factor that affected construction trends
for a metal, involved the existing supply and production
! facilities for the metal* It was necessary to determines
I
j (1) how much metal was being produced today by the United
i
! States; (2) how much by the world; (3) how much of this
! was by primary production; and ( ! ] . } how much by secondary
I production. The existing facilities may not be operating
at capacity. It remained to determine what additional
facilities would be needed to meet the forecasted demands.
i
Chapters IF and V attempted to compile such data for four
metals--aluminum, uranium, lead, and zinc--as examples
i
for the entire non-ferrous metals industry.
I
( No generalization can be made for the supply and
! production factor that will apply to all metals. Each
I
must be examined separately. For lead and zinc, for
example, almost 5>0 per cent of the United States annual
supply is from secondary production. In the case of
aluminum, most of the ore is imported, but all of the
United States metal needs are produced by United States
mills and reduction plants. Table III indicates that
32
our needs for nickel in 1955 were met exclusively by im
ports.
The -world balance of supply and demand, and the
factors, influencing world production and satisfaction of
demands have a great effect on the situation in the United
States. Here, for example, is a special situation on
antimony.
The expansion of free-world production required
to meet free world demand appears physically feasible.
The necessary reserves are available, and production
from them would probably be profitable at the current
price. The possibility that China (normally the
world’s largest producer of anitmony) may return to
the free world market tends to discourage new in
vestment for production elsewhere, however, memory
of the past instability in the antimony market also
strengthens the hesitation of producers to make the
necessary investment to expand production.25
Going from the world situation for a specific metal
to an analysis of the United States situation involves
many complications. First, it is necessary to estimate
what portion of the United States future demand will be
supplied by domestic production, and how much by imports.
Secondly, the proportion of world demand that will be
supplied by the United States must be determined. Such
an analysis requires consideration of political as well
as economic factors. The next factor to be considered is
2^The President’s Material Policy Commission,
op. cit., Vol. II, p. 53.
33
one of such complicating factors.
V. SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS OP THE UNITED STATES
The ideal solving of economic problems of demand 1
and supply in the world is interfered with by practical (
i
problems of security of the United States, and similar j
considerations for other countries. Manifestations of i
the government’s interest in each metal may be found ins
(1) stockpile requirementsj (2) premium price plans;
(3) fast tax write-offs; and (ij.) guaranteed markets.
These are all incentives for mine production and facilities
for extraction of the metals.
Stockpile requirements. The legislation under which
the stockpiling program is being carried out is the
Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act, 19^6
(60 Stat. 59^)• The Paley Report gives the purpose.
The materials in stock-piles constitute strength
in being for the first surge of demand if total war
breaks out, and are planned further to supplement
supplies for an all-out war of considerable duration.
The United States stockpiles are not adequate to
these ends. Some stockpiles are full, some contain
virtually nothing; the others range all the way be
tween these extremes* Details of any particular
stockpile could not be given in a public document
without betraying to potential enemies our strengths
and weaknesses. The general estimate is that at the
end of March 195>2 the total United States stockpile
was one-third full. Compared to a proposed 9 .1 \
billion dollar stock (March 19^2 prices) materials
3 h '
actually on hand at that date were valued at nearly
3*5 billion dollars. In addition, about 2.2 billion |
dollars worth had been ord e re d . I
The stockpile soon acquired a utility as a means of sup
porting metal production and prices. For example, the 1
National Lead and Zinc Committee, in 195l+» recommended j
that full tariff increases permissible by law be granted.
The President refused the increase, and pointed to the
increased stockpiling program as an alternative aid to
27
the domestic mining industry.
Premium price plans. The Premium Price Plan
(February 19i+2 through June 19^7) was designed primarily
to increase production by paying premium prices for pro
duction above a certain quota, which was based on 19^1
output. Production of lead, as an example, increased
from l ( . l i }.,000 tons in 1939 bo i j . 9 6 ,0 0 0 tons in 191+2.^®
A present day version of this plan is now being
used to stimulate the production of uranium concentrates.
The Engineering and Mining Journal summarizes the incentives
2&0?he President's Material Policy Commission,
op. cit., Vol. I, p. 163.
^Ziegfield, Robert L., ’ ’Lead,” Engineering and
Mining Journal, February 1955» P* 90.
^Bureau of Mines, Lead, A Chapter From Mineral
Facts and Problems (Washington, D.C.i United States
Government Printing Office, 1955)* P» 25.
35
that the Atomic Energy Commission has offered to stimulate
production:
(1) A guaranteed base price of #3*50 per pound of
ore assaying 0.20 per cent U^Oo and more; (2) prem
iums based on grades above 0.20 per cent U^Oq; (3) a
development allowance of 50 cents per pound of
U3O8 contained in ores assaying over 0.10 per cent
UoOq; (i+) an ore haulage allowance of 6 cents a ton
mile for a maximum of 100 miles; and (5) an initial
production bonus which may amount to as much as
#35,000 in addition to all other payments. For mill
production, a contract with the Atomic Energy Com
mission is for a given period of time, usually 5
years, at a fixed price.^9
Fast tax write-off. The so-called fast tax write
off is an incentive device that the government has used
in wartime and emergencies for industry* The firm involved
was permitted to write off the facilities at the rate of
20 per cent per annum, on the theory that they might lose
their economic value at the end of the war. The 20 per
cent rate was subject to upward adjustment in the event
the war ended before the 5 year period expired. When
World War II ended in 191+5, nearly all the companies af
fected received large tax refunds on the basis of re
computed depreciation.-^
^"U+Oo Formula for Profits,” Engineering and Mining
Journal, September 1951+, PP. 103 and 111.
3°Benjamin Graham, and David L. Dodd, Security
Analysis {New York; McGraw-Hill Book Company^ 1951),
pp. 135-36.
36
I
| This device was used as an incentive to the con- J
i I
| struction of aluminum plants during the Korean War.3^ it :
j is presently (19^6) being used to encourage construction ;
of milling facilities for u r a n i u m * 3 2
f
1 Guaranteed markets. At the present time, the United
1 States is the sole purchaser of uranium concentrates,
j Contracts with producers last until 1962. These guarantee
! purchase of specified quantities from each mill at a
' 11
1 negotiated price.
1
VI. IMPORTS, EXPORTS AND TARIFFS
1 The factor of exports, imports and tariffs is a
I
i complex factor that is comprised of several sub-factors•
1 It involves excesses or shortages of production in rela
tion to consumption for principal consumers and producers. '
> It involves political policies of protection of domestic
1
i
j producers versus aiding other countries. It involves im-
i
| ports and exports of the ore itself, of concentrates and
| of the metal itself. It involves policies of preservation
; 31, ! Alurainura’s Third Round is On,” Business Week,
! August 13, 19^5*
Construction records, C. F. Braun & Co., Alhambra,
California,
33’ *U308 Formula for Profits,” Engineering and Mining
Journal, September 1954* pp. 103 and 111.
37
of reserves*
The starting point for analysis of this factor is
the present relationship among imports, exports, domestic j
consumption, world consumption. The possibilities are
either: (1) that policies and other driving forces now
in existence will continue to the end of the projection;
or (2) that there will be possible changes in policies of
the principal producers and consumers. The analysis of
the four metals in later chapters was based on the assump
tion that present policies would remain until the end of
the forecast period.
There are opposing forces in the United States
with antithetical interests. Chapter I points out that
the Paley Report favored lifting of tariffs. A United
States News article made a comparison of these forces:
(Paley Report) Stress was laid on buying from
abroad, or not using up domestic ores too rapidly.
The Bureau of Mines is less worried about shortages,
about husbanding U.S. reserves. It is more con
cerned about protecting domestic industry against
foreign imports.34-
Table III lists for some of the major non-ferrous
metals United States production, consumption, imports and
exports of the metals themselves, not ores or concentrates.
3^'*More Metals Wanted— Can U.S. Get Enough?” United
States News and World Report, September 9, 1955.
38
TABLE III
UNITED STATES CONSUMPTION AND SOURCES OP SUPPLY 1
OP MAJOR NON-PERROUS METALS^ i
I
I
Metal Consumption Production Imports Exports
Aluminum 2,000,000 2,169,000 211,000 -
Copper 1,1*1*0,000 1,1*50,000 200,000 200,000 i
Lead 1,200,000 986,000 261*, 000 -
Zinc 1,060,000 1,025,000 160,000 19,000
Nickel 106,000 - ll*2,000
wm
Tin 60,700
22,327 61*, 500
tm
Magnesium 50,21*0 .
93,075
2,1*58
2,9^9
All figures are from Engineering and Mining Journal,
February 1956, and are for 1955 • Exceptions:
Magnesium figures are from Bureau of Mines pamphlet, and
are for 1953* Tin figures are in long tons. All others
are in short tons.
39 '
I VII. MARKET PRICE
I
i
I I
| The analyst, just as the entrepreneur does, roust
not only know the price of the metal, but should know
| whether the price is determined competitively, by monopoly,
• by the United States government, or by a foreign govern-
I
j ment. <
! Tin is an example of a metal for control of whose :
I t
I price there is a strong world-wide movement. There is '
L
j lacking only ratification by Indo-China to set up the
j
International Tin Agreement. This would control price by i
j a central authority changing the amount of metal offered
■ in the world m a r k e t . 35
i I
; Some prices are controlled directly by a govern-
i
j ment. At the present time, the United States is by law
j the only purchaser of uranium* The Atomic Energy Commis-
I
i sion sets the price per pound of concentrates by means of
1 36
j a complicated formula.
{ An example of a metal whose prime determinant of
price is its production cost is titanium. Its cost of
[ $3.1*5 per pound is well above all other metals which are
i
^^George u. Cleaver, "Tin,” Engineering and Mining
Journal, February 1956, p. 89.
36»UoOq Formula for Profits," Engineering and Mining
Journal, September 195l+> pp. 103-111.
bo
listed at less than $>1.00. Difficult technological pro- \
i
blems roust be overcome before the price of titanium can 1
be lowered substantially. Some progress towards this end |
was realized in 1955* ;
All through 1955> output and constantly improving j
production knowhow exerted classic influence on
price strictions. On April, Titanium Metals Corpora
tion of America cut 55 cents off the $lj..50 sponge
price. On November 1, DuPont announced a 20 cent
per pound additional price reduction, and three
weeks later Titanium Metals Corporation of America
cut the sponge price an additional 30 cents per
pound to $3«U5* Therefore, 1955 saw sponge decline
about 23 per c e n t .37
Table IV shows the present wide spread between
copper and aluminum prices, twenty-two and one-half cents
versus forty-three cents. It was not many years ago that
the relative positions were reversed. The Wall Street
Journal reported on the effect of the price difference
in an article titled ’ ’Aluminum Grabs More Sales from
OQ
Copper as Price Spread Widens.Sample quotations are;
A dollar will go farther in aluminum than in cop
per, so we're studying means of using it. The increases
in copper’s price have caused just about every
utility firm in the United States to concentrate all
engineering on the use of aluminum in place of copper.
Price and cost relationship is a prime factor in construc
tion trends. It is a dollar expression of the other fac
tors .
37Thomas W. Lipper, "Titanium," Engineering and
Mining Journal. February 195&, P» 96.
3^The Wall Street Journal. November 1, 1955*
to a fraction of their 195^ level A®
The principal production costs of a metal include;
(1) administration, operation, and maintenance labor;
! (2) costs of utilities, as water, power, steam; (3) cost
I
of chemicals used in the process; (Ij.) depreciation;
(5) replacement costs.^ The practice in the minerals
' industry is to relate costs to a ton of product. Table V
lists a typical analysis of milling costs of an ore.
Costs other than production include: (1) marketing
costs; (2) financing costs; and (3) construction costs.
i
i The first two are common to all industries, and do not
I
merit further discussion. The third is treated as the
I
I next factor.
The production of by-products modifies production
and other costs, in that certain facilities are merged
> or made no longer necessary. For example, before the
!
atomic age, uranium was a by-product of vanadium; ' noW
the reverse is true. The recovery of uranium involves
crushing and grinding, and removal of extraneous material
| ^ Bureau of Mines, Titanium, A Chapter From Mineral
i Facts and Problems (Washington, D.C.: United States
■ Government Printing Office, 1955)* P. 23.
! ^ Denver Equipment Company Handbook (Denver,
Colorado: 195I 4.), pp. ^53-5^.
hk 1
!
TABLE V '
TYPICAL ANALYSIS OP ORE MILLING COSTS !
FOR A URANIUM MILL*
I
»
Cost Per Ton
of Ore
Labor
1
Staff salaries— 13 men #3*^0
Wages --17 men
Chemicals
t
1
Sulfuric acid. 150 pounds per ton at 1,5
1
cents per pound
2 .2 5
Ammonium nitrate. 5*5 pounds per ton at
1
if . 75 cents per pound 0 .2 6
Ion-exchange resin--20 per cent per year
replacement
0.33
Manganese dioxide. 10 pounds per ton at
6 cents per pound 0 .6 0 ;
Miscellaneous chemicals 0 .0 6 ,
Crushing and Grinding
0.75
Lubrication and maintenance
0.55
Tailings disposal 0 .1 0
Utilities
Power. 10 kilowatt per ton at 1 cent per
kilowatt hour 0 .1 0 ,
Gas. 200 cubic feet per ton at 20 cents per
1
1 ,0 00 cubic feet
0 .0 5 !
Taxes and Insurance
0 .6 per cent of $2,000,000 capital cost
divided by annual tonnage
0.1 5
Total Operating Cost $ 8 .60
^From engineering records of C. P. Braun & Co., Alhambra,
California.
1*1 ;
|
TABLE IV ]
J
MARKET PRICES OP MAJOR NON-FERROUS METALS,
END OP 1955* I
Metal Cost per pound
Aluminum $>0.225>
Copper 0.1*30
Lead 0.160
Zinc 0.130
Tin 0.91*8
Nickel o.6l*£
Titanium 3.1*50
• 5 5 *
^Eighty-Seventh Annual Survey and Outlook,” Engineering
and Mining Journal, February, 1956.
I
i+2
VIII. COST AND TECHNICAL PROBLEMS OP
EXTRACTING THE METAL PROM THE ORE
’ Private enterprise seeks the maximization of pro-
j fits. There is little incentive to construct a mill whose ,
! operating costs are so high in relation to sales-price
I
that the margin of profit is slim. In some cases, the
United States government will either pioneer the produc-
i
1 tion or set a price for the product for government con
sumption that will provide the profit incentive.
Technical problems of extraction on new commercial ■
i
i metals are the cause of high production costs. For
| example, the Bureau of Mines pamphlet pointed out that
! the chief problem of the zirconium-hafnium industry is
I
' to reduce the cost of treating the ores. At present, the
J high production costs prevent these metals from competing
successfully with other metals in commercial markets.39
j Similarly, the continued expansion of titanium-metal pro-
! duction and its widespread use for civilian, as well as
military purposes depend on reduction in the cost of
l
j producing uniform high-purity titanium metal and products
; 39
Bureau of Mines, Zirconium and Hafnium, A Chapter
from Mineral Facts and Problems (Washington, D.C.;
] United States Government Printing Office, 1955)> P* 5*
before further processing. The same would be true for
vanadium. The operations are merged. The cost of re
covery of both is much less than the sum of the separate
costs•
IX. CONSTRUCTION COSTS
The trend of construction costs has been steadily
upward. For example, using an index of 100 for 1913*
construction costs in the four years preceding World War II
were at 190, The index rose to 230 by 191+5* then sky
rocketed to I 4. I 4.O in 1955* double the 19^3 level*^ Most
projections to a future date, however, seem to be made in
the dollars of the date of the forecast.
The custom in the non-ferrous metals industry is
to refer to construction costs as X dollars per ton of ore
or metal processed. For example, Taggart lists the con
struction cost of a copper mill at three dollars per
annual ton of ore,^ A mill that processes one million
tons of ore per year would cost $3*000, 000. These costs
are strictly for rough estimating purposes only. They
^ uWage, Material, and Construction Cost Trends,H
The Constructor, January 1956, p. 9*
^Arthur p. Taggart, Handbook of Mineral Dressing
(New York: John Wiley and Sons), I951T
^6
are suitable for the purposes of analysis*
Table VI lists the various non-ferrous metals, the
construction cost, and the source of the cost data. It
is interesting to note that the cost of constructing
uranium mills is high, relative to mills for other metals.
While such a mill might not be economic under ordinary
circumstances, it is made so by government write-offs,
amortization, and price policies.
Host companies look for a return of their capital
investment in three to four years.^
^"Interview with a metallurgical consultant,
February, 195>6 •
T A B L E V I
CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR MILLS AND REFINERIES IN THE
NON-FERROUS METALS INDUSTRY
Metal Plant Cost Source
Aluminum
Copper
Lead-Zinc
Mill plus $1,230 per annual ton in
refinery 1955 prices
Mill $3 per annual ton of ore
195i | . prices
$100 per annual ton)
§100 per annual ton)
$3 per annual ton of ore,
1951+ prices
Lead-SmeIters flj.0 per annual ton of lead
Smelters
Refineries
Mill
Magnesium
Molybdenum
Nickel
Titanium
Uranium
Zinc Reductkn $100 per annual ton of zinc
Reduction works $800 per annual ton of metal
Mill
Mill
Mill
Reduction
works
Mill
$3 per annual ton of ore
•50 per annual ton of ore
to $ 1 4 per annual ton of ore
,000 per annual ton of metal
$22 per annual ton of ore
Business Week, June 18,1955,
Taggart, A.F., Handbook of
Mineral Dressing
C.F. Braun & Co,
engineering records
Denver Equipment Company
Handbook
C.F. Braun & Co.
engineering records
C.F. Braun & Co,
engineering records
Chemical Engineering,
May, 1951
Taggart, A.F., Handbook of
Mineral Dressing
C.F. Braun & Co.
engineering records
C.F, Braun & Co.
engineering records ;
Bureau of Mines >
pamphlet
Engineering and Mining
Journal, September, 195U-*
-p"
C H A P T E R I V
ANALYSIS OP CONSTRUCTION TRENDS FOR TWO '
GROWTH METALS: ALUMINUM AND URANIUM j
Pour metals were reviewed in detail to exemplify j
the use of factors discussed in the preceding chapter.
I The review of aluminum and uranium is summarized in this j
chapter. Lead and zinc are summarized in the following i
' chapter. Aluminum was selected because of its phenomenal
! growth during and after World War II. It is an example
i
I of an industry that was sponsored by the government, and
i
is now on its own two feet with great prospects for the >
j future. Uranium is the present-day glamor metal, complete-^
ly under government control* The Geneva Conference has
' generated considerable interest in the future of this
| metal for future civilian uses.
I. ALUMINUM
i
, Importance. Aluminum has made headlines in recent
i
! years. Its properties and new-found uses have expanded
and will continue to expand the demand for this metal.
I
! The Bureau of Mines introduces their pamphlet on the metal
J
j as follows:
*
I Aluminum ranks first among the primary non-ferrous
metals produced in the United States. The phenomenal
nine-fold expansion of primary aluminum capacity
brought about by World War II and the Korean War
indicates the great strategic need for this metal*
Its increasing importance in the civilian economy
is apparent from the many new nonmilitary goods
that are continually being marketed.45
with high strength-weight factor. It extrudes easily and
is formed easily. It is corrosion-resistant and easily
alloyed with other metals. It is a good conductor of
electricity and heat.
Uses, Lightness and strength made aluminum ideal
for aircraft construction. This was the basis for the
increased military demand during World War II and the
Korean War. Since these wars, aggressive sales by the
leading companies have opened up many new fields for
civilian use. An article by a Reynolds employee^ lists
these uses among others. The major market is the building
industry, with uses for windows, air-conditioning, stove-
fronts, exteriors of buildings. The automotive industry
used thirty-five pounds per car in 1951+• Aluminum pipes
^Bureau of Mines, Aluminum and Bauxite, A Chapter
from Mineral Resources (Washington, D.C.: United States
Government Printing Office, 1955)*
^George S. Brady, Materi als Handbook (New Yorks
McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., I95I), pp. 28-2 9.
li.7
^ Irving Lipkowitz, “Aluminum,H Engineering and
Journal. February, 1955.
Properties. aluminum a light metal
j are being used on the farm, for temporary oil field ,
I
lines. Household foil and other household uses are grow
ing. Aluminum is replacing copper in electric equipment | .
j and electrical transmission. !
I
I
Ore production. Bauxite is the only ore used for
1 large-scale aluminum production. It is a rich ore in
comparison with other ores. About one-half of bauxite !
is alumina, and one-half of alumina is aluminum* World-
j
j wide reserves of bauxite are estimated at 1,600,000,000
f lift
| long tons. According to the Engineering and Mining
i Journal, world production of bauxite in 195^4 amounted
; to l5,l*7i+,000 long tons.^9 (See Table VII.)
The Bureau of Mines Pamphlet tells us that the
United States, in 1953# used £>968,000 tons of bauxite.^0
' Of this total, 52 per cent came from Surinam, 26 per cent
! from Arkansas, 20 per cent from Jamaica, the remainder from
miscellaneous foreign and domestic sources. We import
i
' about three-quarters of the bauxite we use.
^William Van Royen and Oliver Bowles, The Mineral
Resources of the World (New York; Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
1952).
j ^9The Engineering and Mining Journal, 156:9,
I September, 1955.
i R n
i puBureau of Mines, Aluminum and Bauxite, pp. 28-29. !
51
TABLE VII
WORLD PRODUCTION OP BAUXITE, 1951*
Country Long tons Per cent
North America
Jamaica 1,998,000
12.9
United States 1,906,000 12.3
South America
Surinam 3,1*00,000 22.0
British Guinea 2,300,000 ll*.8
Brazil li*, 000 .01
Europe
Hungary 1,280,000
8.3
Prance 1,250,000 8.2
U.S.S.R. 98J+, 000 6.3
Yugoslavia 670,000 1**1*
Other 659,000 if.2
Asia 1* 17,000 2.7
Africa 606,000
3.9
52 ■
I
Refining process* A brief description is given in
*1 !
The Mineral Resources of the World.Alumina has been i
| most successfully produced by the Bayer-process. Ground
i
bauxite is digested under pressure with caustic soda to
form a solution of sodium aluminate. This is filtered
i and treated to precipitate aluminum hydrate, which is
i
put into kilns, to secure alumina. Aluminum is almost
universally produced by the Hall process. Alumina is
i
( dissolved in a bath of cryolite and electrolyzed with the
j aid of carbon electrodes. Alumina plants, needing quanti-
i
I ties of thermal heat, are located in areas of low-cost
: fuel. Reduction plants, requiring 20,000 kilowatt hours
I
I
; per ton produced,.are located near sites of cheap electri-
| cal power.
Government subsidy.52 At the start of the Korean
: War in 1950, the Office of Defense Mobilization (0DM)
! decided that the nation needed more than the current rate
| of 800,000 tons per year. The goal of the first round,
i
i 1951* was an increase by [}i|.6,000 tons. The second round
i
: goal, 1952, was 231,000 tons. The government backed the
^Van Royen and Bowles, loc. cit.
Aluminum’s Third Round Is On,” Business Week,
August 13, 1955* Business Week recently summarized the
1 government’s part in expansion of production.
5 3
expansion by means of: (1) certificates of necessity for ;
fast tax write-offs; (2) government guaranteed loans; and ,
i
(3) guaranteed markets. The success of the program is j
testified by the statistic that in 195^* the United States ,
produced 1,1 ^ . 60,000 short tons of primary a l u m i n u m . 5 3
The pressure for the third round is not by the government
but by the industry. Impetus to demand has been given by:
(1) the 1955 boom; (2) cut in supplies of copper occasioned
by the 1955 stock; and (3) needs of the government stock
pile. In a later issue, Business Week states that if the
present applications for fast tax write-offs are approved,
another 330,000 tons will be added. And some of it may
materialize even without government incentives.^
World production. Primary production in the rest
of the world increased in about the same proportion as in
the United States. It rose from 1,1|70,000 tons in 1953
to an estimated 1,639>000 tons in 195^*^ The United
States share of world output was I 4.7 per cent. The United
States consumed all of its production plus a large part
53Lipkowitz, loc. cit.
5^-Business Week, August 27* 1955*
99 .
-^Lipkowitz, loc. cit.
1
of Canada's 51+6,000 tons. This report assumes that the
i
future demand of the rest of the free world will be met
I by production outside the United States.
Forecasted additional production. The Paley Report
J (discussed in detail in Chapter III) predicts a 1975
J production and consumption of 3>&00,000 tons primary
aluminum, plus an additional 900*000 from secondary re-
i covery and imports."^ From 1951+ to 1975* capacity for
i
primary production will have to be increased 3*600,000-
i
I 1,1+60,000 or 2,11+0,000 tons in twenty-one years. This
I
i means an average annual increase in production of 100,000
i
j tons.
Construction costs. Business Week reported that
, Olin Matthiesen was planning a 60,000 ton per year
I aluminum and alumina plant at a cost of $>7l+ million.
1
1
j St. Joseph Lead and Pittsburgh Consolidated Coal planned
j a 66,000 ton plant for $85 million.^® The average cost
1
i per annual ton figures $ 1,230.
^Bureau of Mines, Aluminum and Bauxite.
; ^?The President's Material Policy Commission,
I Resources for Freedom, Volumes I to V (Washington, D.C.;
j United States Government Printing Office, 1952).
^^Businea3 Week, June 18, 1955*
5 5
Construction potential. The forecasted average
annual increase of 100,000 tons per year, then, would costj
i
capital outlays of $123 million per year. The total :
capital outlays for the twenty-one year period of 195U- 1
to 1975 would amount to some $2.5 billion.
II. URANIUM
Importance and uses. Uranium is probably the most
talked of metal in the world at this time. Its use in
atomic-weapons is paramount. The development of commercial
nuclear power plants, highlighted by the recent Geneva |
Conference, indicates another strong demand for the metal.
Two atomic-powered submarines have been launched by the
United States Navy. There are some fears that the fusion
process will kill the demand for uranium. On the other
hand, some feel that future demands for power will pre
serve the value and demand for all power-making sources,
uranium and others.
Properties. Little was known about uranium before
World War II because it was not easily prepared. Its
properties are discussed in an American Institute of Mining
and Metallurgical Ehgineers publication. ^9 it is highly
59E.A. Anderson et al., Modern Uses of Non-Ferrous
Metals, AIME series (York, Pa.: The Maple Press, 1953)*
pp. I4.6S-73 -
5 6 .
reactive, is pyrophoric in powder form, corrodes rapidly ^
I
in water. It is reasonably ductile, can be shaped with I
heat, can be extruded. It is highly resistant to electri
city. All ores mined in the United States must be sold
to the Atomic Energy Commission. All natural uranium is ;
radioactive and consists of three isotopes. The proper
ties are 99*3 P®^ cent U-238, 0.7 P®** cent U-235* and
0.006 per cent U-23^.
Ores. The crust of the earth averages 0.0003 to
O.OOOi). per cent uranium. It is more abundant than gold,
mercury, or silver.^ The metal never occurs in its pure
form in nature. The principal United States deposits are
carnotite ores in the Colorado Plateau. The twenty ,
i
largest ore producers in the United States are located
there.^ Jesse Johnson, director of Raw Materials Division
of Atomic Energy Commission stated that:
f i d
uBureau of Mines, Uranium, A Chapter from Mineral
Resources (Washington, D.G.: United States Government
Printing Office, 1955).
^Atomic Energy Commission, Sixteenth Semi-Annual
Report, July 195U (Washington, D.C.: United States
Government Printing Office, 19514).
62»porinuia for profits,” Engineering and Mining
Journal, September 195U.
57
On the basis of geological probability,
hundreds of thousands of tons of uranium in
millions of tons of ore remain to be discovered
in the sedimentary deposits of our ■western
states,
Outside the United States, the largest known deposits are
in the Belgian Congo and Port Radium, Northwest Teontonis,
Canada, Lesser amounts are found in Australia, Great
Britain, Prance, Portugal, and C z e c h o s l o v a k i a . ^ In
addition to ore deposits, there is an estimated 600,000
tons of uranium in the five billion tons of commercial
phosphate rock in Florida and our western states.
Refining, The uranium minerals are extracted from
the ore by either acid or carbonate leaching, at the
mines. Mills extract uranium from the solution by one of
several methods, the details of which are classified,66
The uranium concentrates are refined by chemical treatment,
the steps of which are called the Atomic Energy Commission
Peed Materials Program, They consist of: (1) recovery
6^-ttpree World Uranium Re serves--Where Do We Stand?"
Engineering and Mining Journal, May 1955, p. 75.
k^Van Royer and Bowles, 0£, cit., p, 66.
66
1 1 Formula for Profits,” Engineering and Mining
Journal, September, 195i+»
58
of orange uranium oxide (UO ); (2) conversion of UO^ to
3 ^
uranium tetrafluoride (UF^); (3) conversion of part of
UF[^ to uranium hexafluoride (UP^) for feed to the uranium
235 concentration plants; and reduction of the balance to
uranium metal for plutonium manufacture,6? The Atomic
Energy Commission Fissionable Materials Program consists
ofj (1) production of uranium 235 from UP^ at Oak Ridge,
Tennessee and Paducah, Kentucky. Both plants are operated
by Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation. A third plant,
nearing completion, will be operated by Goodyear Tire and
Rubber at Pike County, Ohio. (2) Natural uranium metal
is converted into plutonium in nuclear reactors at Hanford,
Washington (by General Electric) and Savannah River,
/ O
South Carolina (by Du Pont).
Production. Statistics are not available for
security reasons. The United States, however, is not
self-sufficient and imports sizable amounts of ores and
concentrates from Belgian Congo, Canada, and Africa.
We can make a guess at production by piecing bits of
information together. The Bureau of Mines pamphlet lists
^American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
Uranium, Plutonium, and Industry, a Summary of the U.S,
Atomic Energy Program, 1952.
^Bureau of Mines, Uranium.
nine industry-operated mills in Colorado, New Mexico and i
Utah, that are producing a uranium concentrate to ship to !
refineries,^9 This was at the end of 1954* Tiie Engineer- ,
I
| ing and Mining Journal talks of the old figures of 100 or i
200 tpd capacity. Assuming 150 tons per day average, |
the nine mills processed 1,350 tons per day.?® Jesse
Johnson, Atomic Energy Commission Raw Materials Division
I
| Director, estimated that 1951+ production would be doubled
j by the end of 1955* Mr, Johnson goes on to say that,
! with the completion of facilities now under construction,
the milling rate by the end of 1955 may be equal to ore- ■
i
production.The conclusion, from above, is that pro
duction and milling will be at the rate of say 2,700
tons per day, or one million tons per year, of ore, In
another article, Mr. Johnson pointed out that new produc
tion being developed in western states has a uranium
! content which generally ranges from 0,1 per cent to 0,5
i 72
1 per cent. Assuming the medium figure,0.25 per cent,
J the estimate of mill production is 2,500 tons per year of
uranium.
1 69lbld>
^^Robert D, Nininger, " Uranium,1 1 Engineering and
Mining Journal. February 1955> P* 92*
j ^Jesse C. Johnson, "There Is No Real Bottleneck,"
! Engineering and Mining Journal. June 1955* PP. 76-78.
. 72HFree World Uranium Reserves--Where Do We Stand?"
op., cit. _ . -. . -
6o
Forecast of production for non-military use. The
Paley Report made no forecast of uranium production in
the future. Nininger's article lists as one of the
significant developments of 1951+5
The Atomic Energy Commission made public the first
clue to production rates and prices for uranium con
centrates: On the basis of Atomic Energy Commission
studies, Jesse C, Johnson, director of Atomic Energy
Commission's Division of Raw Materials, stated that
uranium requirements for nuclear power by 1975 or
1980 might be on the order of 17*000 tons of U 3O8
annually which he felt on the basis of our knowledge
of Free World uranium resources should be available
at a price not more than $10 per pound in high-grade
concentrates.
Forecast for military use. It can be safely as
sumed, that the estimated 1955 production of 2,500 tons
per year is all for military use. Recently, the uranium
group has been worried that the development of fusion
processes will kill the demand for uranium. Business Week
summarized the worries as follows:
Rumors have scared off speculations. But a far
more solid development has caused the major producers
to take another look at uranium’s future. It is
pretty clear now that uranium supply will exceed
U.S. military demand in 1957*
The limiting factor that always has set the level
of actual military demand has been the capacity of
Atomic Energy Commission production facilities. •
Particularly the plants at Oak Ridge, Paducah,
Kentucky, and Portsmouth, Ohio, which separate the
fissionable isotope U-235 from the more abundant
U-238; and the plutonium plants at Hanford,
Washington, and on the Savannah River near Augusta,
6i
Georgia, which convert U-238 to fissionable plutonium.
When Portsmouth gets into production, the U.S. demand
for uranium will level off.73
Forecast summary. This study assumed that two-
thirds of the 17,000 tons per year, mentioned above, will
be produced and consumed by the United States, say 11,000
tons. In spite of the worries expressed above, it was
estimated that military uses (atomic-powered ships, if
not weapons) will increase consumption from 2,500 tons
in 1955 to lj.,000 tons in 1975* Total forecasted consump
tion and production in 1975 in the United States, then,
is estimated as 15,000 tons per year. Converting this
into tons of ore processed (assuming 0 .2 5 per cent ore),
the statistics are as follows: Ore milled in 1975 will
be six million tons, compared to one million tons in 1955,
an increase of five million tons per year over a twenty
year period.
Construction costs. The only figures available are
constructing milling facilities5 costs. The Engineering
and Mining Journal says that a good guess is $10,000 to
$15,000 per ton per day.^ Business Week, however, says
73“For Uranium, the Bloom is Off,'* Business Week,
September 17, 1955, P* 186.
7^nUranium Metallurgy, How to Get into Milling,'1
Engineering and Mining Journal, September 195^-, P* 103.
62
that the government’s hurry-up policy caused this high
price. It goes on to say that Atomic Energy Commission
has succeeded over the past couple of years in developing
more efficient ways of recovering uranium oxide from the
ore. There are indications that the most advanced mill '
75
at Moab will be built for $8,000 per ton of daily capacity..
Converted to annual tons, the cost is $22 per annual ton
I
for milling. Figures are not available for leaching
plants and plants for isotope conversion. There are only
figures that $100 million is being spent annually in the
United States by the uranium industry. A guess is that
20 per cent of this is spent for new construction.
Construction forecast. With United States produc
tion in 1975 six times its 1955 figure, it was assumed
that, in 1975 the annual expenditure for construction in
the United States will be six times, or $120 million per
year, in 1955 dollars. Assuming an arithmetic progression,
the conclusion is that $1.5 billion will be spent for con
struction in the twenty year period, 1955 to 1975. For
the mill portion, then should be $22 times (6,000,000 tons—•
1,000,000 tons), or $110 million. The rest is for leach
ing, and isotope separation plants.
?5”New Mills Break Up Uranium Bottleneck,1 1 Business >
Week, August 6, 1955.
CHAPTER V
ANALYSIS OP CONSTRUCTION TRENDS FOR TWO
; MAJOR METALS: ZINC AND LEAD
In contrast to the growth metals analyzed in the
j preceding chapter, zinc and lead are two metals whose
future in the United States does not hold the same rosy
| prospect. Both are large-tonnage metals, and hold a
i
I leading position in the non-ferrous metals industry,
I
; i. zinc
Importance and use. In point of world tonnage of
1 non-ferrous metals, zinc is a close second to the leader,
►
I c o p p e r , jn -the United States, the largest single use
i
j of zinc--galvanizing— uses about I 4.0 per cent of the total
slab zinc consumed. The second largest use is in die
j casting; about 30 per cent. Brass-making accounts for
15 per cent. The remaining 15 per cent i3 used for
paints, chemicals, dry cells, photo-engraving plates, and
: cathodic protection.^7
i
^E. a. Anderson, et al., Modem Uses of Non-Ferrous
Metals (York, Pa,: The Maple Press Co., 1953) > p. i j . 8b.
7?Bureau of Mines, Zinc, A Chapter from Mineral
I Facts and Problems (Washington, D.C.: United States
Government Printing Office, 1955)» PP- I8-I9.
Ores and reserves. Sphalerite or zinc blend is
the most abundant zinc mineral. Other less common but
commercially important minerals include willemite, zincite
and franklinite. Nearly all sphalerite ores carry some
lead, and the more complex ores carry gold and silver*
Zinc ores generally contain 2 to 12 per cent zinc,"^®
Measured zinc reserves are estimated to total over 70
million short tons of me tali 35 pez* cent occurs in North
America, 30 per cent in Europe, 15 per cent in Australia,
8 per cent in South America, and about 8 per cent in
Africa and Asia. Partial information on hand indicates
that total zinc in measured, indicated and inferred ore
reserves approximates 200 to 300 million tons.79 World
reserves of zinc ores appear adequate to meet the fore
seeable requirements for the next forty years.®®
Processing and reduction. Almost all zinc ores
are too low-grade to be smelted directly without prior
concentration. The standard zinc concentrate contains
?®Van Royer, and Bowles, 0£. cit., p. 110.
79Bureau of Mines and Geological Survey, Materials
Survey— Zinc (Washington, D.C.: National Security Re
sources Board, 19^1)•
®°Bureau of Mines, Zinc, p. 26.
about 60 per cent zinc.®'*' This operation is done in a
i
mill, where the ore is crushed and ground to liberate
valuable mineral particles, followed by separation of the
Q p
zinc minerals by gravity, flotation, or magnetic methods.
Sulfide zinc concentrates are roasted to eliminate sulfur, ,
1
the zinc is converted to the oxide. The roasted concen
trate may either be leached to recover zinc solution for
electrodeposition of the metal or combined with coke
breeze, anthracite, or other solid fuel, and retorted.®8
Supply and consumption. The Paley Report lists
free world production as divided into 32 per cent in the
United States, l6 per cent in Canada, 10 per cent in
Mexico, l6 per cent in Free Europe, 9 Per cent in Australia:
and New Zealand, 8 per cent in Africa, and 3 per cent in
other Eastern Hemisphere. Consumption was 53 per cent
in the United States, 3 ^ 1 - per cent in Free Europe, with
less than 5 per cent in each of the other producing
areas. Qk The Bureau of Mines pamphlet points out that
8^Van Royer and Bowles, 0£. cit., p. 111.
^Arthur F. Taggart and others, Elements of Ore
Dressing (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 195l)•
®^Donald M. Liddell, Handbook o£ Non-Ferrous Metal
lurgy (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 19T
8i+The President's Material Policy Commission,
Resources for Freedom (Washington, D.C.: United States
Government Printing Office, 1952), Volume II, p. I 4. 7.
6.6
world output of slab zinc in the period I9I +6 to 1953
averaged 2,01+2,000 annually as compared to world consump
tion in the same period of an average 1,975*000 tons an
nually. Thus, world stocks accumulated to depress the
price. Higher grade deposits outside the United States
make the cost per unit of metal less. With the lower
prices in raid-1952, mine production in the United States
dropped from an annual rate of 720,000 tons in the first
half of 1952 to an annual rate of 610,000 in the last
half. It further dropped to 51+7*000 tons in 1953* to
1+61^,000 tons in 1951+* In the last three months of 195^*
however, consumption was at an annual rate of 975*000
tons. The market-price fell from 16.21 cents per pound
in 1952 to 10.68 cents in 195^»^ A recent Business Week
article indicates a change in the price trend.
Recent price boost resulting from strong demand
have brought zinc to 13 cents per pound— the highest
level since 1953* Since the early part of this
year, demand has been especially brisk for the
special high-grade zinc used in the automotive in
dustry. Demand for the galvanizing grade is also
reported heavy. Government stockpiling, which be
gan around mid-195l+ has also helped bring,the price
up from the low point reached last year.°^
^Bureau of Mines, Zinc, p. 1 3.
®^wBack Up the Hill," Business Week, September 2k,
1955, P. 8 8 . ------------------P 4
67
The United States zinc-smelting industry consists
of eighteen primary reduction plants with a capacity of
1,089>000 tons of slab zinc in 1953* They actually
operated at only 86 per cent of that capacity, producing
93l+»000 tons* In addition, the twenty United States
secondary distilling plants produced 35*000 tons. Primary
smelting has increased from 728,000 tons in 19U-6 to 916,000
tons in 1953* an increase of 25 per cent. Secondary re
covery of zinc in the period I9I +6 to 1953 averaged 302,000
1
tons or 23 per cent of the total supply. Imports have in
creased from 339*000 tons in 1956 to 678,000 tons in
1953* providing I 4.5 per cent of the supply in the latter
ye ar•^
O D
United States government programs. The govern
ment regulated the zinc industry during World War II and
again in 1950 to 52. Steps were taken to increase im
ports. The most important measure used to stimulate
domestic production was the Premium Price Plan (paying
premiums for production over the 191+1 output). During
the life of the plan (191+2 to mid-19l|.7) 56 per cent of all
Q
Bureau of Mines, Zinc, p. 18.
Q^Ibid. , pp. 2l(.-25; "Washington Impact," Engineering
and Mining Journal. September 195^, P» 132.
6 8
zinc produced received premiums. Other measures included
stock piling, exploratory programs, control of exports.
In 195^4- j pressure was exerted to increase tariffs
for protection of domestic production. Instead, the
President announced that the Government was in a position
to buy 300,000 tons of zinc by July, 1955* This would
account for about one-half of domestic production.
Consumption and production forecasts. The Paley
Report®^ sees United States consumption increasing from
1,150,000 short tons in 1950 to some 1,600,000 tons in
1975* This is an increase of 39 per cent, but still less
than I 4.0 per cent as fast as the growth in total production
of goods and services. The Report predicts that domestic
production will not exceed 700>000 tons per year, but that
the demand for imports may double by 1975 to some 800,000
tons annually. To supply this increase of imports and
the increase of demand in the free world, the free world’s
production (exclusive of United States) will reach a level
of 2.5 million tons in 1975* almost double the 1950 out
put.
89
'The President’s Material Policy Commission,
Resources for Freedom (Washington, D.C.: United States
Government Printing Office, 1952), Volume II, pp. m
69
United States consumption for 1951+ was down to
860,000. Ince attributed this to zinc's close affilia
tion with the steel industry, which was off 21 per cent
90
from 1953* The September 9 issue of United States News
and World Report9* ^ reported a Bureau of Mines forecast
that zinc consumption in 1975 would be 20 per cent above
the 1951+ figure. This would mean 1.03 million tons, about
120,000 tons less than the 1950 figure.
Lasky92 comments that the low United States mine
production in 1951+ (i+ 60,000 tons) may have completed the
process of canceling out the abnormally high production
of World War II— a process delayed by the Korean War— and
if so, annual production should rebound from the 1951+
level. He expected the 1955-1965 domestic mine production
to average 625,000 to 675,000 tons per year. Compare
this to the 1951 production of 681,000 tons.
Construction forecast. The apparent conclusion to
be drawn from the above forecasts is that no new construc
tion is needed in the United States from now until 1975.
1
9®Charles R. Ince, "Zinc,” Engineering and Mining
Journal, February 1955, p. 88. — ------------------
91”More Metals Wanted— Can U.S. Get Enough?” U.S.
News and World Report, September 9, 1955, pp. 7t+-7-8.
92S. G-. Lasky, "Mineral Futures Can Be Predicted,1 '
.Engineering and Mining Journal. September 1955, _p. 9 6.
I Domestic mine production, milling, and refining is running
well under capacity. United States consumption in 1975
! is expected to be about what it was in 1950, Present
i
! facilities, then, should be adequate. There will be a
i great need for construction of mills and refining facili-
[
ties in other free countries to take care of their greatly
increased demand. The cost of such construction is out-
j side the scope of this study. The conclusion is that
j there will be little capital outlay for new construction
I in the zinc industry from 1955 to 1975> except to replace
i
• obsolescent plants.
, IV. LEAD
' • Importance and use. Lead is the densest common
| metal, weighing 11.3 times an equivalent volume of water.
■ Under conditions of ordinary atmospheric corrosion, the
life of lead may be measured in centuries,93 About 30
per cent of all lead is used for storage batteries, 20
. per cent for pigments, and 10 per cent for cable coverings
Commercial lead is sold in pigs weighing 100 pounds
A new important use is nuclear shielding: the Atomic
93Anderson, op. cit., p. 159*
9^-George S. Brady, Materials Handbook (New York:
! McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1951)* P• 39^•
Energy Commission realtors employ a combination of con-
| crete, lead, cadmium and space to protect personnel from
I radiation.7- '
I
\
' Ores and reserves. The chief ore of the metal lead
is Galena, a lead sulfide, PbS, containing theoretically
8 6 .6 per cent lead. The ore, however, contains many other
minerals and usually carries only i| to 11 per cent lead.
I Other ores are Cerussite and Anglisite, formed by the
j oxidation of galena. The total world reserves of lead
! are about lj.0.5 million tons. Of this, approximately 12.5
million tons are in Australia, 10 million in North America,
! 10 million in Europe, 3*5 million in Africa, 2.5 million
| in South America, and 2 million in Asia*^ Some I 46 per
I cent of the world* s lead reserves are controlled by
British capital through majority ownership of companies
| operating in Australia, Canada, and Burmaj American capital
controls 29 per cent of the known reserves.97 World re-
| serves of developed and inferred ore are adequate to inset
i
I ----------------------
I 95>Lead Industries Associated, Lead in Modem In
dustry, 1952. : ---------
| Q&
Bureau of Mines and Geological Survey, Materials
Survey--Lead (Washington, D.C.: United States Government
! Printing Office, 1951).
97
Van Royer and Bowles, 0£. cit., p. 105*
foreseeable uses for the next thirty years, and the poten- j
tial reserves of areas at present undeveloped are believed J
even greater.
| i
j Processing and reduction. Most lead ores must be '
j concentrated before smelting to remove large quantities of
waste substances and to remove zinc-bearing minerals.
This operation is done in a mill, usually located near
the mine. The milling process consists of crushing and
grinding to liberate the valuable mineral particles,
i followed by separation of the lead mineral particles by
I
I gravity, flotation, or some combination of these. Lead
1 is recovered from the concentrates almost exclusively by
| smelting in blast furnaces or ore hearths employing carbon ■
j fuels.99
I Production.^00 The United States is the world’s
i largest producer and consumer of lead. During the twenty-
I
j nine year period 1925 to 1953 the mines of the United
I
' States produced an average of 1 4. 1 4 . 2,000 tons of primary
9®Bureau of Mines, Lead, A Chapter from Mineral
i Fa°ts and Problems (Washington, D.G.: United States
■ Government Printing Office, 1955)» P* 27.
1
|
■ 99ponald M. Liddell, Handbook of Non-Ferrous
! Metallurgy (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., l^bS) •
1 ^^Robert L. Ziegfeld. ^Lead." Engineering and Mining
' Journal, February 19557 p. 90. — -----: — _ — r ™
n
lead per year, or 26 per cent of the total world mine out- ,
put. In recent years, world mine production has increased '
while United States output has declined; in 1950 to 1953*
United States mine output averaged 388,000 tons annually
or only 20 per cent of the world total. Six companies in
the United States produce two-thirds of the total domestic
mine output of lead.
The total primary lead-refining capacity at the
end of 1953 was approximately 886,000 tons of pig lead.
Actual production of refined primary lead in 195 ^ 4 - totaled
i+85,000 tons, an operating rate of 55 per cent of capacity.
In 195U, the United States supply of 1,250,000 tons of
lead was derived: 37 per cent by secondary recovery, 25
per cent from refining of domestic ores, 2I 4. per cent from
imports, l i } . per cent from United States refining of foreign
ores •
World production of primary and secondary lead in
recent years (19^8 to 195i|) has been well in excess of
world requirements, hence surplus stocks. In 1952 the
cutting back of stock piling and world consumption caused
prices to fall. Excess production was shipped to the
United States. Prices fell rapidly, many mines closed,
and by 195^ 4 - domestic mine production was at its lowest
point in twenty years. !
Consumption. United States consumption (primary
and secondary) from 1941 through 1953 has averaged more
than 1,100,000 tons annually or considerably more than
*
half of world consumption. The all-time peak was reached
in 1 9 5 0 at 1 , 2 3 8 , 0 0 0 tons. Consumption in 1 9 5 4 was
1,100,000 tons; some 1^0,000 tons less than supply, how-
i ever.101
!
* 102
United States government programs. The govern-
j ment regulated the lead industry during World War II
t
| and again in 1951 to 1952. The most important measure
used by the government to stimulate production was the
i Premium Price Plan (paying premiums for production over
1 1941 output). During the life of the plan (1942 to 1947)
payments totaling $64 million were made on one million
I tons of over-ceiling production. Other measures included
| exploratory programs of the Bureau of Mines, stock piling,
!
I and fast tax write-offs. In 1954» pressure was exerted
J
1 to increase tariffs for protection of domestic production.
j
. Instead, the President announced that the government is
' in a position to buy 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 tons of lead by July, 1 9 5 5 ;
; l0lZiegfeld,loc. cit.
! 102,,Washington Impact,’ 1 Engineering and Mining
, Journal, September 1 9 5 4 * P . 1 3 2 .
| this would account for more than half current domestic
I
l production*
I
i
: Consumption and production forecast* The Paley
Report forecasts an increase in United States consumption
from a level of 1,2 million short tons in 1950 to 1*95
t million in 1975* some 60 per cent*'*"^ This is only 6o
I
| per cent of the expected growth of Gross National Product,
The Report goes on to predict that the best to be hoped
for is that domestic mine production will not decline by
more than 50 per cent by 1975; the United States will
' have to rely increasingly on imports, the demand for
| which may be 60 per cent greater in 1975 than the 565*000
; tons imported in 1950*
i A 1955 forecast by the Bureau of Mines, as reported
j in United States News and World Report, predicted an in-
, crease in consumption by 1975 of 3l+ per cent over the 1.1
| million tons in 1951+* or I.I 4.8 million tons in 1975«1^
1
1
| A prediction of domestic production by the Engineering
and Mining Journal for 1951+ to I96I+ is 300,000 tons of
lead per year as compared to l9i+9~59 average between
300,000 and 350,000 tons per year,^^
103The President’s Material Policy Commission,
loc. ext. *
j 10lj.tsMore Metals Wanted--Can U.S.
j Hfma and World Report, September 9, 1955
' 10^
La sky, o&. cit., pp. 9I 4.- 9 6.
Get Enough," U.S.
, pp. 74-78.
ib
Construction forecast. The only apparent conclu
sion that can be drawn from the above summary is that
there will be no outlays of any magnitude for construction
in the lead industry from now to 1975* United States
mines, mills, and smelters are running considerably
less than capacity. All informed sources seem to think
that increases in demand will be met by imports. Even
if a change in tariff policy should encourage domestic
production, there is still enough slack in domestic produc
tion facilities to take care of the increased demand.
Outside the United States there will be considerable con
struction activity from 1955 to 1975* The only capital
outlays in the United States during the period of 1955
to 1975 will be to replace obsolescent plants.
CHAPTER VI
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of the study was to determine the fac
tors influencing construction trends, and to exemplify
i the influence of these factors by specific application to
construction for the non-ferrous metals industry. The
first step was a review of the literature. The literature
reviewed consisted of government reports and publications,
j construction industry trade journals, metals industry
■ trade journals, text books, business magazines, and world-
?
■ event magazines,
I
Review of the literature. Business Week provided
I an introduction to forecasting as the modern scientific
i approach to business problems as compared to past ap~
i
! proaches based on intuition or guesswork. Three tech-
f
I
j niques are the so-called **loaded-deckn method that depends
1 on inside information; the “oaks from acorns" method,
; or extrapolation from a past trend; and a third method,
i
■ using a forecast of Gross National Product, Business Week
described forecasts of Gross National Product in i960 by
; six economists,
1 The “Paley Report'* presented a long-range survey,
! 1955 to 1975? of thirty key commodities. The Report
78
< examined the supply and demand outlook, here and abroad,
i and recommended policies for bringing supply and demand
i
into balance. The Bureau of Mines issued a series of
j pamphlets, one for each metal. These pamphlets summarize
reserve and production figures, uses for the metal, and
i
I
a forecast from 1955 to 19&0. The Paley Report favored
policies that would permit greater imports to fill needs
for metals. The Bureau of Mines favored tariff protection :
I
; of domestic industries.
The Constructor provided valuable records of con-
I
i struction costs and the relationship of total construction
I
j to Gross National Product. The Engineering and Mining
i Journal provided up-to-date figures on metals production
and prices. The United States News and World Report re-
i
i ported late news on government forecasts of metal demands.
The construction industry. An examination of the
construction industry and its subdivisions was made. The
I construction industry, some 15 per cent of the Gross
National Product, is, and will continue to be a vital
1
; factor in national economy. Its fluctuations cannot help
but affect all other industries. On the basis of a pre-
; diction of 1975 Gross National Product as #725 billion,
j total construction may reach the staggering sum of #105
79 ■
billion, almost double the $£7 billion attained in 195>E>«
Here is the possibility of a tremendous outlay of money
for construction in the next twenty years. It would seem j
wise, then, to develop tools that can be used to check !
I
such a prediction, and to follow the trends from year to. I
year so that gains and losses will be detected.
The construction industry has many subdivisions,
based on the industry being served, or the product. Each
subdivision has its own peculiar factors influencing con- j
struction trends. The largest subdivision is that con- 1
cerned with residential construction, some 39 Per cent of
all new construction. Industrial construction, some 6
per cent of total new construction, was selected for
analysis. In order that the analysis be specific, a
single part of industrial construction, that for the non-
ferrous metals industry, was chosen for detailed analysis.
The non-ferrous metals industry. The non-ferrous
metals industry is a subdivision of the minerals industry,
the other subdivisions being the steel industry and the
non-metallic mineral industry. The value of this industry
and its future cannot be measured by the dollar value
of its products only. This amounted to $l,6ll million in
1952, about one-half of one per cent of Gross National ^
So.
Product. Its importance is found in its relation to j
national security and its intimate connection with the j
standards of living of the people of the United States
and the world. No general analysis can be made of the
future of the industry and construction for it without
examining each metal individually, for each has its own
peculiar problems.
Factors influencing construction trends. Nine
factors were established as the basis for analyzing con
struction trends for the non-ferrous metals industry.
These factors are:
1. The outlook for Gross National Product. The
entire construction industry is 15 per cent
i
of Gross National Product. It cannot help but
follow the trend of Gross National Product.
2. The uses and demand for the metal. Unless
there is a demand and an outlook for increase
in demand, there is no incentive for expansion
of existing facilities.
3. Metal reserves. An investigation of reserves
is needed to determine whether they are adequate
to supply demands in the foreseeable future.
A short-lived plant is not an attraction for
construction capital.
81
i|. Metal supply and production facilities. Having
predicted future demand, the next logical step
is to determine present facilities of supply.
I
The difference between the predicted demand
and present supply is the next step toward de
termination of new construction needs.
!
Security considerations of the United States. ;
The government creates incentives for construc
tion by stockpiling, premium plans, fast tax
write-offs, and guaranteed markets. ;
6. Imports, exports, and tariffs. Prom the stand
point of determining the need for new produc
tion facilities in the United States, exports
add to demand, and imports decrease the
domestic supply needed. Tariffs by the United
States and other nations modify these pluses
and minuses.
7. Market price. Price less costs gives profit.
The type of price, whether free market, con
trolled, or supported, is a determinant of
risks of future profit; therefore, risk of
construction capital.
8. Cost and technical problems of extracting the
I
metal from the ore. The relationship with price,
82
j
! the future for costs in relation to the future
i
for price attracts or repels construction
capital,
9# Construction costs. Profits are not adequate
unless the original capital cost is returned in
a reasonable time. This depends on price,
production costs, and the construction cost
i
| outlay,
! Aluminum and uranium. Two growth metals that have
received much recent publicity are aluminum and uranium,
I
! Aluminum production in the United States has grown from
800,000 tons per year in 1950 to l,i|60,000 tons in 195^*
, The Paley Report forecasted, for 1975* United States pro-
: duction and consumption of 3,600,000 tons of aluminum
!
’ from primary sources and 900,000 tons from secondary
recovery and imports. Construction outlays to accomplish
; the growth from 195^- to 1975 would be some $>2,500,000,000,
! or an average of $ 123,000,000 per year.
I
Production statistics of uranium have not been
published. Based on information pieced together from
, various news releases, it was estimated that existing
j mills were producing 2,700 tons of ore per day, or 2,500
I
j tons of uranium concentrate per year. It was estimated
I
I
83 ,
j that 1975 production will amount to l5>000 tons per year
! of uranium concentrate. Construction outlays to accomplish!
the expansion may amount to $1,500,000,000. The outlays |
I :
for the mill portion may amount to $110,000,000. |
Zinc and lead. The United States produces one- j
third and consumes one-half of the world's production of ;
| zinc. World production in 19i}.6-1953 exceeded consultation !
| t
on average of 70,000 tons per year. The excess stocks j
I depressed prices; the higher costs of production in the
l United States decreased mine, mill, and smelter production*
The Paley Report forecasted United States consumption in j
1975 as 1,600,000 tons as compared to 1,150,000 tons in
1 1950* was estimated that more than 50 per cent of the j
! i
, consumption will be supplied by imports. United States I
production will be 700,000 tons per year, about the same ;
as 1950. Existing facilities are of sufficient capacity
to handle this production. No expenditures for new con-
1 struction during 1955 to 1975 were forecasted.
t
1 In 195^* lead refining capacity in the United
! States was 886,000 tons. Actual production was 1^85,000
tons, or 55 per cent of capacity. An excess of world
production over world consumption in the period 19^ + 8 to
1951+ depressed prices. The higher costs of production
1 in the United States depressed its percentage of the !
81). ,
world*s production. The Paley Report forecasted an in
crease of United States consumption from 1,200,000 tons
in 19^0 to 1,9^0,000 tons in 1975* It was estimated that ;
imports in 1975 would amount to some 850,000 tons. Of
i
the remaining 1,100,000 tons, secondary recovery will 1
I
produce i|0 per cent, or i|J4.0,000 tons. The remainder, j
660,000 tons, is well below the 195^ 4 - capacity for 886,000
tons. The conclusion was that there will be no expendi
tures for new construction during the period 1955 to 1975*
Conclusion. It is hoped that the study accomplished
three things: (1) that it provided a general guide for
analysis of trends of construction; (2) that it provided
specific guides for analysis of construction trends in
the non-ferrous metals industry; and (3) that it provided 1-
useful information and analysis of construction trends
for four major metals: aluminum, uranium, zinc, and lead.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A. BOOKS I
I
I 1
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Uranium, !
I Plutonium, and Industry, New York: American Society !
j of Mechanical Engineers, 1952. j
Anderson, E. A,, and others. Modern Uses of Non-Ferrous !
Metals, York, Pa.: The Maple Press Company, 195>3* |
i
Brady, George A, Materials Handbook, New York: McGraw- j
Hill Book Company, 19^1, !
I
Graham, Benjamin and David L. Dodd. Security Analysis,
j New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1951.
j Henderson, J. G., and J. M. Bates. Metallurgical
| Dictionary. New York: Reinhold Publishing Corporation,
Lead Industries Association. Lead in Modern Industry.
! New York: The Association, 19527
Liddell, Donald M. Handbook of Non-Ferrous Metallurgy.
New York; McGraw-Hill Book Company, 191+57
j Ratcliff, Richard U, Urban Land Economics. New York:
j McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 191+9-
Taggart, Arthur F. Handbook of Mineral Dressing,
i New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1951*
; Taggart, Arthur F. and others. Elements of Ore Dressing.
! New York: John Wiley and Sons,' Inc., 1951.
i
j Van Royer, William and Oliver Bowles. The Mineral Resources
’ ££. World. New York; Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1952*
Wulff, John and others. Metallurgy for Engineers. New
York: John Wiley and Sons, 1951+.
87
B. GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS
Bureau of Mines. Chapters from Mineral Pacts and Problems
Aluminum and Bauxite, Uranium, Titanium, Zinc, Lead,
Zirconium and Hafnium. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1953*
Bureau of Mines and Geological Survey. Materials Survey—
Lead. Washington, D.C.J U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1951.
_______ • Materials Survey--Zinc. Washington, D.C.s U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1951*
The President's Materials Policy Commission. Resources
for Freedom. Volumes I to V. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1952.
United States Atomic Energy Commission. Sixteenth Semi-
Annual Report. Washington, B.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1955*
United States Department of Commerce. Business Statistics
1953 Bienniai Edition. Washington, D.C.; U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1953#
_______• Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1955.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,
1955.
C. PERIODICAL ARTICLES
"Aluminum's Third Round Is On," Business Week, August 13,
1955.
"Back Up the Hill," Business Week, September 2i j . , 1955*
"Buckling Down to Problem Solving," Business Week,
January 8, 1955*
"Business Week Reports on the New Science of Business
Forecasting," Business Week, September 2I f . , 1955-
Cleaver, George H. "Tin," Engineering and Mining Journal,
February, 1958.
1 "Eighty-Eighth Annual Survey and Outlook,” Engineering
i 311 d- Mining Journal, February, 1956*
“Electro-Plating Firm Says Nickel Shortage Causes Gray
Market,” Wall Street Journal, November 6, 1955*
"Free World Uranium Reserves, Where Do We Stand?”
Engineering and Mining Journal, May, 1955 •
"For Uranium the Bloom Is Off,” Business Week, September
! 17, 1955.
"How Eisenhower Charts the Future," United States News
and World Report, January 28, 1955*
Ince, Charles R. "Zinc," Engineering and Mining Journal,
February, 1955*
' "Interview with William S. Paley," United States News and
j World Report, August 15, 1952.
j Johnson, Jesse C. "There Is No Real Bottleneck,"
Engineering and Mining Journal, June, 1955*
Lasky, S. G. "Minerals Industry Futures Can Be Predicted,
Engine ering and Mining Journal, August, 1951» and
j September, 1955*
Lipkowitz, Irving. "Aluminum," Engineering and Mining
i Journal, February, 1955*
I
Lippert, Thomas W. "Titanium," Engineering and Mining
Journal, February, 1956.
j "More Billions for Business Expansion," United States
j New8 and World Report, November 25, 195 5*
! "More Metals Wanted— Can United States Get Enough?"
United States News and World Report, September 9,
| 19# .
"New Mills Break Uranium Bottleneck," Business Week,
; August 6, 1955.
!
"New Year to Set Some Records," United States News and
World Report, January 6, 195^^
; 89 :
i
| Nininger, Robert D. "Uranium," Engineering and Mining
j Journal, February, 1955*
I
i
1 Nordberg, Bror. "Aggregates and Construction Volume
Establishes a New Record," Rock Products, January,
19#>. !
| !
| "Profiles of i960: Businessmen are Learning How to Use
j Them," Business Week, March 5» 1955*
The Constructor, December, 1955, January 1956, February,
The Wall Street Journal, November 1, 1955*
! "Total Construction Compared with Gross National Product,"
I The Constructor, January, 1956*
i
"U3O0— Formula for Profits," Engineering and Mining
j Journal, September, 195U*
"Uranium Metallurgy, How to Get Into Milling," Engineering
I and Mining Journal, September, 195i|«
"Wage, Materials, and Construction Cost Trends," The
| Constructor, January, 1956.
' "Washington Impact," Engineering and Mining Journal,
] September, 1951)-•
| Ziegfeld, Robert L. "Lead," Engineering and Mining
I Journal, February 1955*
D. MISCELLANEOUS
Denver Equipment Company Handbook, Denver, Colorado.
! Engineering records, C. F. Braun & Co., Alhambra, Calif
ornia .
■ Interview with metallurgical consultant.
University of Southern California

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The technical and legal aspects of trust deed landing

PDF

The Puerto Rico Industrial Incentive Act as it relates to a Southern California aircraft accessory manufacturer: A case study

PDF

An appraisal of the investment merits of periodic payment plans

PDF

Some aspects of the United States farm credit system with reference to Iraq agriculture

PDF

Common stocks as investments for life insurance companies

PDF

The valuation of closely-held common stock

PDF

The effects of the Federal estate tax on the supply of equity capital

PDF

The financial implications of the growth of credit unions in California during the period from 1939-1955

PDF

The cost of common stock equity as measured by earnings-price ratios for distribution gas utilities in original cost and fair value jurisdictions

PDF

An analysis of the investment characteristics of securities issued by natural gas transmission companies

PDF

The economic significance of savings and loan associations with emphasis on Los Angeles County

PDF

The investment merits of oil royalties

PDF

Investing by formula plans in the securities of selected investment companies

PDF

The role of aviation in modern education

PDF

A study of gold mining in the Philippines

PDF

A study of business results of selected stock fire insurance companies

PDF

A study of selected life insurance companies to determine the effect of their operations in California on the flow of capital into and out of that state during the year 1947

PDF

Trust deed foreclosures in California

PDF

A critical analysis of capital gains taxation

PDF

An analysis of cooperatives as a solution to the basic social and economic problems of the Philippines

Asset Metadata

Creator Curran, James Albert (author)

Core Title A financial study of basic factors influencing construction as exemplified by selected non-ferrous metal production

Degree Master of Business Administration

Degree Program Business Administration

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag business administration, general,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Trefftzs, Kenneth L. (committee chair), Dockson, Robert R. (committee member), Martin, G. Preston (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c20-135317

Unique identifier UC11263736

Identifier EP43427.pdf (filename),usctheses-c20-135317 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier EP43427.pdf

Dmrecord 135317

Document Type Thesis

Rights Curran, James Albert

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA