Document 6wm520RNvQa2eeMdqYagN2z33
LIA 1644 9
LEAD PROMOTION - WOr.PT ESTIP* 6TATZ5
By
P. C. Feldersen. General Smelter Superintendent Bunksr Hill k Sullivan Mining It Concentrating Company
Presented to The Lend Industries Association, 25th Annual Meeting, April 9 10 1953, The Greenbrier, Whit* Sulphur
Springs, West Virginia
t
I
Before answering the specific questions submitted by the Membership, a fev geneial statistics for the area: All ve in the "sticks" knov .
Is what we rend In the papers and from the statistics prepared for us by the various Bureaus end Associations. Each tine I start can-r ing statistics Iron several different sources, ny bicod presrur-
rises and I usunlly give up in ?<sgust. Wo exception this tine. For my statistics covering the lend production from the Northwestern States, Idaho, Montana, ani Washington, I selected Lead Industries Association Form E and thi Bureau of Mines Mineral Industries Surveys.
Lead Industries Form E carrlss these footnotes:
(1) This rsport Is based upon the total content of ore or concen- > trates.
(2) The above figures are estimated to represent slightly over 90 percent of the total recoverable lead production of the country.
The Bureau of Hines reports mine production of recoverable lead. <
I am Inclined to accept the Bureau of Hines figurts since I believe \ these are based on Saelter receipts:
Bureau of Mines Mineral Industry i
).95d
1951
1952
SurveTS
1951
122
B.H.it S. M. k C. Co. Day Mines, lac.
Federal H. k 8. Co. Frisco Galena Morning Page
Hccla Mining Co. Sidney S,'Ol:ano-Idaho Sullivan Mining Co. Sunset Minerals Bun si line Mining Co. Triumph Mining Co.
.otal Idaho
Anaconda Coppar Mining Co. Jack Wait# (a) Mike Horst Total Montana
American Zinc-Lead Pend Orsllle
Total Washington
25,472 25,526 6,836 9.0J9
1,554
4,672 7,676
6)
2,904 1,757 7,630
796 4,228 1.132
.
1,773 296
4,450
7,249
13 1,525 1,112
6,229 391
3,360
3.553
68,722 64,516
12,044 714
.1.341
14,099
11,588 741
1.25L
13,580
2,194 4,053 _2.90Q_- 4-748 5,094 8,801
if . ,
i
75,164 21,736
7,957
l
i
J1 1
1 i
72,291 1
it* i
21,131 ;
i
J 41,376 ;
Grand Total
114*042 87,915
(Pine Creek Dtstrlot of Idaho)
5,423
86,897 3,786
104,857
104,798
i l
a) Shut dotsa Nov. 19)2 bi Recoverable Lead
L IA1645
Oslng Lead Industries,Fon* E. I have segregated the nines reported for Idaho, Montana, md Washington for the years 1951 and 1952 and
opposite there 1 hoVe set down the corresponding figures froa the * Bureau of Mincs*Industry Survey*. For 1950, I have shown only the total from tho threo states from Fora E. This is the banner year which I like to renenbor since It was that year that the bunker Hill Smelter had it* record lead production of so.io-iiat In o x c ps s of 75,1 w j o tons--the reason being in that year oil tho mines In the dis trict had a full crew of miner* during tho entire year. This Is th# >niy year that this ha* happened for many years p,i3t. I have never . been able to determine th# reason. Gome have suggested that there wo* a alight recession in that year.
That the Form E figures represent slightly over 90% of tho total re
coverable load production Is fairly true for the entire country. '
Comparing production figures from Fora E with those of th* Mineral '
Industry Surveys for 1951 and 1952, th# percentages are 89.Bi. and 92.5%, rcepectively.
In comparing the statistic# for individual states, the 905C holds well for Idaho--th# percentages being 91.4^ and 39.2% for the two years. For Montana, however, the percentages are only 65.end 64.2<, and
for Washington, 64.05 and 11,5%. Tho reason for the discrepancy In ' the figures for Washington Is quite evident since the Form E dees not report production such as the Bonanza Mine and the Deep Creek Mine of the Ooldfleld Consolidated Mining Company. Because of lack of time
to Investigate, I cannot givo th# reason for th# discrepancy in th# 1 figures for Montana.
Any further reference to tho statistics will b to thos# of th# Mineral Industry Surveys.
How, the specific questions submitted to this Panli
j
The idea of th# Question Box may, or may not, be a good Innovation. I
Certainly it is not having a fair trial this year. I received the '
questions less than a week before I started East. This did not allow
time for Research but I did make a hurried poll of the mines in the
district and submit my meager findings.
j
(Ques. l) To what extent will the current combined metal price of I
24-1/21 per pound affect lead and zinc production in
!
your area?
j
(Answer) B. H. & 8. M. & C. Co., already has discontinued block > caving, since this marginal ore has become sub-marginal ;
at present matal prices. Likewise, tailing;; re-treatnent has boen discontinued. This will result in an annual reduction in production j of approximately 4,000 tons of lead and 7,500 tons of zinc.
I am informed that the Star Mine of the Sullivan Mining Con cany ; Is aiming to increase production rather than decrease production'In ; order to reduce unit costs. A somewhat higher grade of ore is being ': mined, thus depleting the ore reserves at an accelerated rate. This 1 practice, no doubt, will not be continued should the present low etel prices hold for an indefinitely long period.
Federal is continuing at Its normal production rate--at laast for tha present.
. Day Mines, Inc., has already curtailed Its zinc output by 75> and could even go to no zinc production at 111 metal within sLx
sxntha. Lead production this yoar could well drop to a tonnage of only one-fourth to one-half of tha 1952 production,
j
1 l j
1J
Lead production from the Pina Creek District of th# Coeur d
j
Alenrs vas 5,423 tons in 1951 and 3,786 tons in 1952. Since the ore t
>oa this district generally carries a ratio of between 3 ar.d 4 to 1 1
V zinc to lead, the reduction in zinc production vas substantially !
iheater than load. Part of tha reduction vas caused because of lower
grade ore mined end partly because of low metal prices. This district
la historically a "high metal price* production district. Practically
all of the mines now producing were in operation during World War I. ;
Subsequently, all were closed down and not re-opened until the start
of World War II. Tha or* la highly complex--resulting in poor sep- ;
aratloo of tha laad and zlne. This results in increased production
-2
i
Mineral
J
costs and decreased value of the salable products. I believe most of these properties are presently operating at a loss, or at best, on aa even-break basis and are merely hanging on hoping for Improved netal
prices. A consideration Is the cost involved in shutting a rslno down, keeping It unvatcr^J, and In repair for re-opening when .octal orlces justify.
(Quo*. 2) vhnt, if any, reduction In 0. s. a . nine production tonnage of lead In 1952 in your arcs was due solely to drop in the price of lead?
(Answer) From the Bureau of Hines Hlneral Industry Surveys, lead production from the thrc~ Hcrthwcstcm states in 1951 was
104,857 tons; In 1952, 104,798 tons, or practically identical tonnage*.
(Ques. 3) Do you bcileve that a continuation of the present level of
lead; that Is to say, 13* to H* over 1951 will result in a serious drop in lead production in your area? If so, when in your, opinion, will a substantial curtailment In lead beccae apparent?
(Answer) This question Is substantially answered under (1). Vhat
additional reduction In lead production in the area will result froa a continued lead price of 13* to 14* for the balance of
the year la anyl*odys guess. 8ome opinions expressed Indicate that the total reduction for the year aay be as high as 20% to 25^.
1
; ;
' .
(Ques. 4) Are there any technological developments In progress which might lead to better recovery end lower coat and vhich
might, therefore, add to potential production and reserves of lead in the reasonably near future?
(Answer) In this regard, I can speak only for the smelting industry. There is constant progress In improved metallurgy but I
know of no developments so revolutionary which would result In an affirmative answer to the question. Rather extravagant claim have been made for the Cherslco Procoss but, so far, they are not ready to ' even talk about Its application to lead. Talking points have been: low plant cost, low operating costs, and highly refined r.et.ils issu ing from the various spigots. I am unauthorltatlvely Informed that, I for plants which have been constructed, or are being constructed,-the actual cost is eroatly exceeding the estimate. Stainless steel has not proved satisfactory in certain applications and Is being replaced! with titanium netnl. 8ome production has been had which is not market* able and will require further refining.
5
Those polled have no knowledge of such technological developments in i mining and milling.
i
Vhat we should strive for Is a more reasonable relationship between wages, productivity per man, and natal prices. More and more mechan
isation is a pnrtlal solution.
Reasonable uniform prices for metals should be desirable to all--the i
producer, the con nine r, and the foreign countries of whose metal pro-';
auction a considerable portion Is imported to the United States. It '
Is hoped that our legislators will consider favorably the proposed 1
"so-called* sliding, or escalator, Import tax on metals. This should^
conceivably, result In more uniform and reasonable metal prices.
(
I believe the Industry should be most appreciative of the generosity [
of Kr. Felix Vormter mad his Company, the St. Joseph Lend Company. To Felix for accepting, and to his Company for making him available to j accept his new appointment in Washington. Be will do a good Job for J the industry.