*°«fc .1 
 
 
 
 ^ ♦fSm3i« <&> A ♦/ 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 **d* 
 
 
 '. ^^ «*«^iak'<» "^^" y^i^'- ^^ ^«^^ia'- "'^^ 
 
 ^AqV 
 
 
 ^°^ 
 
 *bv u 
 
 V ..•^r* ^ 
 
 o« * - 
 
 «*o* 
 
 A 
 
 
 v^^ 
 
 V v3. *• • » * A 
 
 w 
 
 
 < F ^^> " • • • <vj ^c». 
 
 6? w e& 
 
 
 C>_ # 
 
 
 
 
 
 o5°^ - 
 
 A 
 
 * «? ^s d1 < 
 
 
 
 
 v ♦ 
 
 ^c,^ 
 *>,>* 
 
 

 
 
 ^ <*\tffc\ ^.^>>o **.&&% 6°*.^i.% </\ 
 
 \P r; 
 
 iW 
 
 
 * * °- Q* AV * L-n— r * «* 
 
 
 V 
 
 
 % -W i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 V^ 1 
 
 "%oo \«-y V^V V*V %^/./v^ 
 
 %,** 
 
 -,* ♦* ^ 
 
 v<s. v 
 
 
 
IC 8895 
 
 Bureau of Mines Information Circular/1982 
 
 OCT 1 4 198? 
 
 .COPY 
 
 SSElcifT* 
 
 «&} 
 
 Chromium Availability— Domestic 
 
 A Minerals Availability System Appraisal 
 
 By Jim F. Lemons, Jr., Edward H. Boyle, Jr., 
 and Catherine C. Kilgore 
 
 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
 
Information Circular 8895 
 
 Chromium Availability— Domestic 
 
 A Minerals Availability System Appraisal 
 
 By Jim F. Lemons, Jr., Edward H. Boyle, Jr., 
 and Catherine C. Kilgore 
 
 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
 James G. Watt, Secretary 
 
 BUREAU OF MINES 
 Robert C. Horton, Director 
 
As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the 
 Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands 
 and natural resources. This includes fostering the wisest use of our land 
 and water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, preserving the 
 environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical 
 places, and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. 
 The Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to 
 assure that their development is in the best interests of all our people. The 
 Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reserva- 
 tion communities and for people who live in island territories under U.S. 
 administration. _,. i 
 
 Ai4 
 
 ftO 
 
 ,*MS 
 
 This publication has been cataloged as follows: 
 
 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data 
 
 Lemons, Jim F. 
 
 Chromium availability — domestic 
 
 (Information circular; 8895) 
 Bibliography: p. 11 
 Supt. of Docs, no.: I 28.27: 
 
 1. Chromium ores— United States. 2. Chromiun. I. Boyle, Edward H. II. Kilgore. C. C. 
 (Catherine C). III. Title. IV. Series: Information circular (United States. Bureau of Mines): 8895 
 
 TN295.U4 [TN490.C4] 622s [553.4'643] 82-600208 
 
4 
 
 III 
 
 V 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 The purpose of the Bureau of Mines Minerals Availability Program is to assess the 
 worldwide availability of nonfuel minerals. The program identifies, collects, compiles, and 
 evaluates information on active, developed, and explored mines and deposits, and on 
 mineral processing plants worldwide. Objectives are to classify domestic and foreign 
 resources, to identify by cost evaluation resources that are reserves, and to prepare 
 analyses of mineral availabilities. 
 ^ V) This report is part of a continuing series of Minerals Availability System (MAS) reports 
 
 that analyze the availability of minerals from domestic and foreign sources and the factors 
 that affect availability. Analyses of other minerals are currently in progress. Questions 
 about the MAS program should be addressed to Director, Division of Minerals Availability, 
 Bureau of Mines, 2401 E Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20241. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 Page 
 
 Preface iii 
 
 Abstract 1 
 
 Introduction 2 
 
 Acknowledgements 2 
 
 Estimating chromium resource and cost data 3 
 
 Domestic chromite deposits 4 
 
 General 4 
 
 Geology 4 
 
 Extraction methods and costs 5 
 
 Availability of chromium from domestic deposits 6 
 
 General 6 
 
 Chromite concentrate availability 7 
 
 Total chromite 8 
 
 Annual chromite 8 
 
 Ferrochromium concentrate availability 9 
 
 Conclusions 10 
 
 Bibliography 11 
 
 Appendix A. — Ownership and control of domestic chromium properties 12 
 
 Appendix B. — Mining methods 13 
 
 Appendix C. — Research and development 13 
 
 Appendix D. — Cost analysis of an open pit mining and milling operation 14 
 
 ILLUSTRATIONS 
 
 1 . Classification of mineral resources 2 
 
 2. Flow chart of evaluation procedure 3 
 
 3. Location of domestic chromite properties 5 
 
 4. Chromium total resource availability, 1 5-percent rate of return 8 
 
 5. Chromium annual resource availability, 1 5-percent rate of return 8 
 
 6. Ferrochromium total resource availability, 1 5-percent rate of return 9 
 
 7. Ferrochromium annual resource availability, 15-percent rate of return 10 
 
 TABLES 
 
 1 . Chromite deposit resource information 4 
 
 2. Chromite-laterite deposit resource information 5 
 
 3. Chromite deposit status and proposed mining and beneficiation methods 6 
 
 4. Estimated costs for mining and beneficiating domestic chromite resources 6 
 
 5. Chromite concentrate data 7 
 
 6. Potential recoverable Cr 2 3 contained in chromite concentrates at various prices 8 
 
 7. Potential recoverable ferrochromium at various ferrochromium prices 9 
 
 A-1 . Ownership and control of domestic chromium properties 12 
 
 D-1. Estimated capital requirements for a 1 ,900-metric-ton-per-day open pit mining and milling operation 14 
 
 D-2. Estimated operating costs for a 1 ,900-metric-ton-per-day open pit mining and milling operation 14 
 
 D-3. Deposit operating data required for the economic evaluation of the 1 ,900-metric-ton-per-day open pit 
 
 mining and milling operation 14 
 
 D-4. Cumulative values derived for the economic evaluation of the 1 ,900-metric-ton-per-day open pit 
 
 mining and milling operation 14 
 
CHROMIUM AVAILABILITY— DOMESTIC 
 A Minerals Availability System Appraisal 
 
 By Jim F. Lemons, Jr., 1 Edward H. Boyle, Jr., 2 and Catherine C. Kilgore 2 
 
 ABSTRACT 
 
 The Bureau of Mines Minerals Availability System collected and analyzed data for 34 
 nonlaterite and 9 nickeiiferous laterite domestic chromite deposits in order to assess their 
 viability as sources of chromium under present technologic and economic conditions. 
 These 43 deposits, none currently in production, contain approximately 6.3 and 22.3 million 
 metric tons of Cr 2 3 at the demonstrated and identified resource levels, respectively. 
 
 Approximately 4.6 and 15.6 million metric tons of Cr 2 3 are recoverable at the 
 demonstrated and identified levels, respectively, for the 34 nonlaterite deposits. None of 
 these resources are economically recoverable at January 1981 market prices. Production 
 of metallurgical-grade chromite (market price $128 to $144) would require a minimum 
 chromite market price of $237 per metric ton. Chemical-grade chromite production (market 
 price $74 to $85) would require a chromite market price in excess of $188 per metric ton. 
 
 From the 34 nonlaterite deposits, roughly 5.4 and 1 7.6 million metric tons of ferrochrome 
 could be produced at the demonstrated and identified resource levels, respectively; 
 however, a minimum market price of $770 per metric ton of ferrochrome would be required 
 to stimulate production. 
 
 The nine nickeiiferous laterite deposits were not evaluated through production stages 
 because of uncertainties in process technology and cost. 
 
 1 Metallurgist, Minerals Availability Field Office, Bureau of Mines, Denver, Colo. 
 
 2 Geologist, Minerals Availability Field Office, Bureau of Mines, Denver, Colo 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 Although chromium is essential for producing stainless 
 steel superalloys and industrial hard plating, and also has a 
 wide range of usage in other alloy steels, pigments, and 
 plating, the United States is almost entirely dependent upon 
 imported sources for its chromium. Production from domestic 
 sources has been sporadic, occurring during periods of high 
 prices or price support, primarily during national emergen- 
 cies. The last production occurred in 1962. During periods in 
 which international trade is not restrained, production from 
 primary domestic sources has not been economically 
 competitive with foreign sources. 
 
 Apparent annual domestic consumption of chromium 
 approximates 500.000 metric tons. Net import reliance is 
 reported to be 90 percent, with the remaining 10 percent 
 satisfied by recycled chromium (13). 1 The critical nature of 
 chromium, combined with this high degree of foreign 
 dependence, indicates the need for reliable information on 
 possible sources of domestic supply. Accordingly, this study 
 of the availability of chromium from domestic sources was 
 developed by the Bureau of Mines. Minerals Availability 
 System (MAS), with the intention that this information can 
 contribute to the formation of minerals policy. 
 
 The following procedure was used in conducting the study: 
 
 1. The quantity and quality (grade, iron content, etc.) of 
 domestic chromite resources were evaluated in relation to 
 physical, technological, institutional, and other conditions 
 that affect production from each deposit. 
 
 2. The capital investments and operating costs for 
 appropriate mining, concentrating, and processing methods 
 were estimated. 
 
 3. An economic evaluation was performed on each 
 deposit. The results of these analyses indicated the unit 
 prices and associated tonnages of contained chromic oxide 
 (Cr 2 3 ) and ferrochromium that could be recovered at 
 specified production levels for each deposit. 
 
 4. Price-production relationships were combined and 
 analyzed as contained Cr 2 3 and ferrochromium availability 
 curves to show the domestic chromium production potential 
 at various commodity prices. 
 
 Results of this study are reported in terms of recoverable 
 Cr 2 3 and ferrochromium at demonstrated and identified 
 resource levels, as these levels are defined in the mineral 
 resource-reserve classification system developed jointly by 
 the Bureau of Mines and the U.S. Geological Survey (14). 
 The demonstrated resource category includes measured and 
 indicated tonnages, and the identified resource category 
 includes inferred as well as demonstrated tonnages (fig. 1). 
 These definitions indicate a greater degree of credibility in 
 the results at the demonstrated resource level. Not all of the 
 deposits that have identified resources will have demon- 
 strated resources, because the classification is dependent 
 upon available geologic and mineralogic data. As additional 
 data become available, deposit resources could be reclas- 
 sified. 
 
 For comparison with current market requirements, the 
 Cr 2 3 concentrate grade and the chromium-to-iron (Cr:Fe) 
 ratio are also identified. Curves indicate both total and annual 
 potential resource availability for recoverable Cr 2 3 and 
 ferrochromium. 
 
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 
 
 The authors wish to thank Larry J. Alverson, formerly with 
 the Bureau of Mines, Division of Nonferrous Metals, for his 
 
 3 Italicized numbers in parentheses refer to items in the bibliography 
 preceding the appendixes. 
 
 assistance in establishing the resource tonnages and grades 
 included in this report. Personnel at Bureau of Mines Field 
 Operations Centers in Pittsburgh, Pa., Spokane, Wash.. 
 Denver, Colo., and Juneau, Alaska, supplied production and 
 cost data for the deposits included in this study. 
 
 Cumulative 
 Production 
 
 IDENTIFIED RESOURCES 
 
 Demonstrated 
 
 Measured Indicated 
 
 Inferred 
 
 UNDISCOVERED RESOURCES 
 
 Hypothetical 
 
 Probability Range 
 -(or)- 
 
 Speculative 
 
 ECONOMIC 
 
 MARGINALLY 
 ECONOMIC 
 
 SUB- 
 ECONOMIC 
 
 Reserve 
 
 Base 
 
 Inferred 
 
 Reserve 
 
 Base 
 
 + 
 
 4- 
 
 Other 
 Occurrences 
 
 Includes nonconventional and low-grade materials 
 
 Figure 1 . — Classification of mineral resources. 
 
ESTIMATING CHROMIUM RESOURCE AND COST DATA 
 
 The flow of the MAS evaluation process from deposit 
 identification to development of availability curves is illus- 
 trated in figure 2. This flowsheet shows the various 
 evaluation stages used in this study to assess the quantity 
 and economics of the chromium available from a property. 
 
 Of the 43 domestic deposits investigated (none currently in 
 production), 34 were selected for analysis in this study. 
 Deposits that could share common mills were combined for 
 analysis, resulting in 16 separate evaluations. The nickelifer- 
 ous laterites were not analyzed in terms of potential 
 production because of technological and cost uncertainties. 
 
 Selection of the deposits for this study was limited to 
 known deposits that have significant demonstrated or 
 identified reserves or resources. Resources are concentra- 
 tions of naturally occurring solid, liquid, or gaseous materials 
 in or on the Earth's crust in such form that extraction of a 
 mineral commodity is currently or potentially feasible. 
 Reserves are resources that can be mined, processed, and 
 marketed at a profit under the economic and technologic 
 conditions prevailing at the time of the evaluation. 
 
 Most reserve and resource tonnage and grade calculations 
 presented here were computed partly from specific measure- 
 ments, samples, or production data, and partly from 
 estimations based on geologic evidence. 
 
 After all deposits were identified for analysis by the Bureau 
 of Mines Division of Minerals Availability, evaluations of 
 these properties were performed at the Bureau's Field 
 Operations Centers. Data on average grades, ore tonnages, 
 and different physical characteristics affecting production 
 from domestic chromite deposits were obtained from 
 numerous sources, including Bureau of Mines and Geologic- 
 al Survey publications, professional journals, State and 
 industry publications, annual reports, company 10K reports 
 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 
 data made available to the Bureau of Mines by private 
 companies, and estimates made by Bureau personnel based 
 on personal knowledge and judgments. 
 
 The next step entailed an examination of the physical 
 characteristics of each deposit in order to establish a 
 development plan for each property that would yield a 
 
 '< I 
 
 dentification 
 and 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 j Mineral 
 
 Industries 1 
 
 J Location 1 
 
 s System 1 
 
 1 (MILS) : | 
 
 data i 
 
 i 
 
 MAS 
 
 computer 
 
 data 
 
 base 
 
 selection 
 of deposits 
 
 
 w 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Tonnage 
 
 and grade 
 
 dete rmination 
 
 
 
 
 P 
 
 
 w 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 Enginee ring 
 
 and cost 
 
 eva 1 u ation 
 
 
 
 p 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 + 
 
 
 
 
 f 1 
 
 
 Deposit 
 
 report 
 
 preparation 
 
 
 MAS 
 
 per manent 
 
 deposit 
 
 files 
 
 
 ' 
 
 1 
 
 r 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 w 
 
 marketable product. Development requirements and produc- 
 tion capacities were based on current mining engineering 
 and metallurgical principles. Capital requirements were 
 calculated for exploration, acquisition, development, mine 
 plant and equipment, and constructing and equipping the mill 
 plant. Capital expenditures for the different mining and 
 processing facilities include the costs of mobile and 
 stationary equipment, construction, engineering, facilities 
 and utilities, and working capital. The broad category — 
 facilities and utilities (i.e., infrastructure) — includes, among 
 other things, the cost of the water system, fire protection, 
 roads, fences, and fuel and power distribution. Working 
 capital is a revolving cash fund required for operating 
 expenses such as labor, supplies, taxes, and insurance. 
 
 Mine and mill operating costs were also calculated for each 
 deposit. The total operating cost is a combination of direct 
 and indirect costs; direct operating costs include materials, 
 utilities, direct and maintenance labor, and payroll overhead, 
 while indirect operating costs include technical and clerical 
 labor, administrative costs, facilities maintenance and 
 supplies, and research. Other costs in the analysis are fixed 
 charges such as local taxes, insurance, depreciation, 
 deferred expenses, interest payments (if applicable), and 
 return on investment. 
 
 When possible, actual company cost data were used. If 
 these were not available, the required capital and operating 
 costs were estimated by standardized costing techniques or 
 through the use of a Cost Estimating System (CES) that was 
 developed for the Bureau of Mines (4). This costing system 
 was designed for preparing capital and operating cost 
 estimates through the use of equations, curves, and factors. 
 The system, based on an average of the costs for existing 
 mining operations in the United States and Canada, covers 
 operations of various sizes. Correct use of the costing 
 system will produce reliable estimates, which historically 
 have fallen within 25 percent of actual costs. 
 
 Both feasibility and consistency in these mineral property 
 evaluations, development plans, and associated costs were 
 confirmed and verified at the Bureau's Minerals Availability 
 Field Office, where these data were subsequently used to 
 
 Taxes, 
 
 royalties, 
 
 cost indexes, 
 
 prices, etc. . 
 
 Data 
 
 selection and 
 
 va I idation 
 
 Variable and 
 parameter 
 adjustments 
 
 Financial 
 analysis 
 
 Data I 
 
 Sensitivity 
 analysis 
 
 Availabilityi 
 curves 
 
 Analytical 
 reports 
 
 J 
 
 Data 
 
 Availability 
 curves 
 
 Analytical 
 reports 
 
 Figure 2. — Flow chart of evaluation procedure. 
 
 387-181* 0-82-2 
 
perform an economic evaluation of each property. This was 
 accomplished through the use of two Bureau-developed 
 computer systems: MINSIM (i.e.. MINe SIMulator) for the 
 economic evaluation of individual mineral properties (2), and 
 the Supply Analysis Model (SAM) that is used to evaluate all 
 properties in a defined mineral commodity study area (e.g., 
 domestic chromium) (6). The output of this economic 
 evaluation process is the primary commodity price needed to 
 provide a stipulated rate of return. The rate of return used in 
 this study is the discounted cash flow rate of return 
 
 (DCFROR), most commonly defined as the rate of return that 
 makes the present worth of cash flows from an investment 
 equal to the present worth of all after-tax investments (11, p. 
 232). For this study, a 15-percent DCFROR was considered 
 necessary to cover the opportunity cost of capital plus risk. 
 Individual deposit tonnage price data were then aggre- 
 gated by the SAM to construct the resource availability 
 curves presented in this study. The study was conducted in 
 constant January 1981 dollars. No escalation of either costs 
 or prices was included. 
 
 DOMESTIC CHROMITE DEPOSITS 
 
 GENERAL 
 
 Tables 1 and 2 show resource information for each of the 
 43 domestic deposits for which data were collected by the 
 Bureau of Mines. The nine laterite deposits (table 2) have 
 potential for future recovery of chromite; however, an 
 evaluation in terms of cost and price of these deposits was 
 not performed at this time because of technological and cost 
 uncertainties. As noted in tables 1 and 2, the deposits contain 
 6.3 and 22.3 million tons of contained Cr 2 3 at the 
 demonstrated and identified resource levels, respectively." 
 Locations of the chromite deposits are shown on figure. 3. 
 Ownership and control data for each property are presented 
 in table A-1 of appendix A. 
 
 GEOLOGY 
 
 Chromite deposits are formed by primary genesis and 
 secondary reconcentration. Primary genesis occurs by the 
 
 " Tonnage estimates presented in this study are reported in metric tons. To 
 convert from metric tons to short tons, multiply by 1.10231. 
 
 crystallization of chromite and other heavy silicates such as 
 olivines and pyroxenes. Secondary chromite deposits are 
 derived from the weathering of chromite-bearing rocks in 
 which the chromite then accumulates either as sedimentary 
 (placer) deposits, or in lateritic soils concentrated in situ by 
 ground water leaching of highly weathered ultramafic rocks. 
 
 Chromite of primary genesis origin occurs principally in 
 stratiform and podiform (alpine) deposits. Stratiform de- 
 posits, characterized by great lateral extent and uniformity, 
 generally contain low Cr:Fe ratio material. The chromite 
 occurrences of the Stillwater Complex in Montana typify 
 stratiform deposits. Podiform deposits, formed as lenticular 
 or tabular pods, are usually composed of high-chromium or 
 high-aluminum type chromite ore. Deposits of this type 
 include Claim Point and Red Bluff Bay, Alaska, and the Bar 
 Rick and Pilliken Mines in California. 
 
 The secondary deposits, derived from reworking and 
 concentrating the primary deposition, are composed of 
 placer and laterite deposits. Principal known placer deposits 
 are the Oregon Beach Sands. Laterite deposits occur in 
 northwestern California and southwestern Oregon. 
 
 Before 1940, all domestic production was from podiform 
 
 Table 1 . — Chromite deposit resource information 
 
 Property 
 
 State 
 
 Grade, 
 
 Demonstrated, 1 
 thousand metric tons 
 
 Identified, 
 thousand metric tons 
 
 
 percent 
 Cr 2 3 
 
 Mineralized 
 material 
 
 Contained 
 Cr 2 3 
 
 Mineralized 
 material 
 
 Contained 
 Cr 2 3 
 
 Alaska 
 
 17.8 
 
 267 
 
 30 
 
 
 
 47.6 
 3.6 
 
 
 267 
 
 30 
 
 183 
 
 47.6 
 
 ..do 
 
 . .do 
 
 12.0 
 25.8 
 
 3.6 
 47.2 
 
 California 
 
 ..do 
 
 ..do 
 
 ..do 
 
 . .do 
 
 7.6 
 W 
 
 11.9 
 5.0 
 5.0 
 
 5,065 
 W 
 
 
 
 4,546 
 
 384.9 
 W 
 
 
 
 
 227.3 
 
 44,512 
 
 W 
 
 104 
 
 30,975 
 
 10,826 
 
 3,382.9 
 
 W 
 12.4 
 1,548.8 
 541.3 
 
 Georgia 
 
 .4 
 
 131 
 
 .6 
 
 131 
 
 .6 
 
 Maryland- 
 Pennsylvania. 
 
 1.4 
 
 729 
 
 10.1 
 
 729 
 
 10.1 
 
 Montana 
 
 . .do 
 
 w 
 
 15.0 
 
 w 
 
 500 
 
 W 
 75.0 
 
 w 
 
 854 
 
 w 
 
 128.1 
 
 North Carolina 
 
 1.9 
 
 108 
 
 2.1 
 
 178 
 
 3.5 
 
 Oregon 
 
 5.6 
 
 10.827 
 
 604.1 
 
 45,772 
 
 2,554.1 
 
 Pennsylvania 
 
 1.7 
 
 209 
 
 3.5 
 
 209 
 
 3.5 
 
 Wyoming 
 
 2.5 
 NAp 
 
 3,774 
 
 92.5 
 
 3,774 
 
 92.5 
 
 NAp 
 
 46.604 
 
 5.620.6 
 
 194.019 
 
 19,333.2 
 
 Claim Point 
 
 Red Bluff Bay 
 
 Red Mountain 
 
 Bar Rick Mine 
 
 McGuffy Creek 
 
 North Elder Creek 2 
 
 Pilliken Mine 
 
 Seiad Creek Emma Bell 
 
 Louise Chromite 
 
 West Placer Area 3 
 
 Stillwater Complex: 
 
 Mouat Benbow 
 
 Gish Mine 
 
 North Carolina Area 2 
 
 Southwest Oregon Beach Sands 
 
 Renshaw Placer . '. 
 
 Casper Mountain 
 
 Total" 
 
 NAp Not applicable. W Withheld to avoid disclosing individual company proprietary data; included in total. 
 ' Domestic chromite reserve base 
 
 2 Includes 3 deposits that have been combined for analysis. 
 
 3 Includes 13 deposits that have been combined for analysis. 
 
 * Includes resources withheld to avoid disclosing individual company proprietary data. 
 
Table 2. — Chromite-laterite deposit resource information' 
 
 Property 
 
 Stale 
 
 Grade 
 percent 
 Cr,0, 
 
 Demonstrated, 
 thousand metric tons 
 
 Identified, 
 thousand metric tons 
 
 Mineralized 
 material 
 
 Contained 
 
 Mineralized 
 material 
 
 Contained 
 Cr,0 3 
 
 Pine Flat Area: 
 
 Gasquet Laterite .... 
 Little Rattlesnake . . . 
 Lower Elk Camp .... 
 Pine Flat Mountain . . 
 Red Mountain 
 
 Eight Dollar Mountain 
 
 Red Flat 
 
 Rough and Ready . . . 
 Woodcock 
 
 Total 2 
 
 California . 
 
 . . do 
 
 ..do 
 
 ..do 
 
 . .do 
 
 Oregon . . . 
 
 ..do 
 
 . .do 
 
 . .do 
 
 NAp 
 
 w 
 
 W 
 
 W 
 
 w 
 
 W 
 
 w 
 
 w 
 
 W 
 
 w 
 
 W 
 
 w 
 
 w 
 
 W 
 
 w 
 
 W 
 
 2.8 
 
 6.382 
 
 1787 
 
 15.052 
 
 421 5 
 
 W 
 
 W 
 
 W 
 
 W 
 
 W 
 
 1.1 
 
 
 
 
 
 13.023 
 
 145.9 
 
 w 
 
 W 
 
 W 
 
 W 
 
 W 
 
 1.5 
 
 
 
 
 
 5.931 
 
 90.7 
 
 1.3 
 
 n 
 
 n 
 
 R5R7 
 
 11?5 
 
 NAp 
 
 33.813 
 
 6400 
 
 143.126 
 
 2.9954 
 
 NAp Not applicable. W Withheld to avoid disclosing individual company proprietary data; included in total. 
 
 1 Not included in cost-price analysis because laterite-process technology has not been commercially proven. 
 
 2 Includes resources withheld to avoid disclosing individual proprietary data. 
 
 deposits, but since then production from the stratiform 
 deposits of the Stillwater Complex has predominated. The 
 majority of the podiform deposits have yielded less than 
 1 ,000 tons each and have been economically insignificant. 
 
 EXTRACTION METHODS 
 AND COSTS 
 
 This study includes deposits that have produced in the 
 past as well as deposits that have no recorded production. 
 Each of these deposits has sufficient resource information so 
 that a mining and beneficiation method can be proposed. The 
 mining and beneficiation methods proposed are based on 
 
 those methods used in past domestic production of chromite 
 ores. Thus, recovery of chromite is based on standard placer, 
 open pit, and underground mining methods. The location, 
 deposit type, status, proposed annual capacity, and mining 
 and benefication methods for the deposits are shown in table 
 3. A brief description of the mining method of each deposit is 
 given in appendix B. Many of the deposits are small, 
 particularly those in the Eastern United States, requiring use 
 of highly mobile, small-capacity mining equipment and 
 portable process equipment. 
 
 Beneficiation of mined ore is designed to upgrade the 
 Cr 2 3 content, or increase the Cr:Fe ratio of the chromite; 
 however, most beneficiation of mined ore does not signifi- 
 
 f*?&5Pln« Flat Area 
 ^AfJSeiad/Emmo Bell 
 
 Bar Rick Mc6u,f * CrMk ~~ 
 . Q oNorth Elder Creek 
 
 /Red Mtn. 
 PillikenO 
 
 Reserve Base-metric tons contained CrJOy 
 o Less than 100,000 
 • 100,000-1,000,000 
 ■ More than 1,000,000 
 
 Figure 3 — Location of domestic chromite properties. 
 
Table 3. — Chromite deposit status and proposed mining and beneficiation methods 
 
 Property 
 
 State 
 
 Type of 
 deposit 
 
 Status' 
 
 Minimum 
 
 lead time, 
 
 years 
 
 Annual 
 
 capacity. 
 
 metric tons 
 
 of ore 
 
 Mining 
 method 
 
 Beneficiation 
 method 
 
 Claim Point 
 Red Bluff Bay 
 Red Mountain 
 
 Alaska 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 Podiform 
 do . . . 
 do 
 
 Ppd 
 Exp 
 Ppd 
 
 4 
 2 
 2 
 
 18,000 
 
 9,000 
 
 18.000 
 
 Bar Rick Mine 
 McGufty Creek 
 
 California 
 
 .do 
 
 do . . 
 
 do 
 do . . . 
 
 do , , . 
 do ... 
 
 Ppd 
 
 Ppd 
 
 Ppd 
 
 Ppd 
 Ppd 
 
 2 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 3 
 
 350,000 
 787 500 
 
 North Elder Creek-' 
 
 Pilhken Mine 
 
 .. ..do 
 
 . . . .do 
 
 25,000 
 2,100,000 
 
 Seiad Creek Emma Bell 
 
 . . . . do 
 
 562,500 
 
 Louise Chromite 
 
 Georgia 
 
 Placer 
 
 Exp 
 
 Ppd Dev 
 
 1 
 
 25,000 
 
 West Placer Area 3 
 
 Maryland- 
 
 do . . . 
 
 1 
 
 50,000 
 
 
 Pennsylvania 
 
 
 Stillwater Complex: 
 Mouat Benbow 
 
 Montana . . 
 
 Stratiform 
 . . do . . . 
 
 Ppd 
 Dev 
 
 3 
 2 
 
 525,000 
 
 Gish Mine 
 
 .. ..do 
 
 175,000 
 
 North Carolina Area 2 
 
 North Carolina 
 
 Placer . . 
 
 Ppd Dev . 
 
 1 
 
 25,000 
 
 Southwest Oregon Beach 
 Sands, 
 
 Oregon 
 
 . . do . . . 
 
 Ppd 
 
 2 
 
 1,000.000 
 
 Renshaw Placer 
 
 Pennsylvania . 
 
 . . do . . . 
 
 Ppd 
 
 Exp 
 
 1 
 
 50,000 
 
 Casper Mountain 
 
 Wyoming 
 
 Stratiform 
 
 3 
 
 377,260 
 
 Open pit Gravity, 
 
 . .do Do. 
 
 Overhand Do. 
 
 shrinkage. 
 Sublevel stope . . Do. 
 
 Open pit Do, 
 
 ..do Do. 
 
 .do Gravity-magnetic. 
 
 do Gravity. 
 
 . .do Gravity- 
 electrostatic. 
 Placer mining . . . Do. 
 
 Shrink stope .... Gravity. 
 . . do Do. 
 
 Open pit Gravity- 
 electrostatic. 
 
 Strip Gravity-magnetic- 
 electrostatic. 
 
 Open pit Gravity- 
 electrostatic. 
 . . do Gravity. 
 
 ' Dev — Developing mine; Exp — Explored deposit; Ppd — Past producer. 
 
 2 Includes 3 deposits combined in the analysis. 
 
 3 Includes 13 deposits combined in the analysis. 
 
 cantly improve the Cr:Fe ratio, but can increase the total 
 Cr 2 3 content by separation of gangue. The ore is typically 
 concentrated in a series of gravity-concentrating steps 
 involving tables, spirals, and jigs, with middlings being 
 reground or reseparated. In limited cases, the concentrate 
 can be further upgraded with electrostatic separation; this 
 method will improve the Cr:Fe ratio, but typically works only 
 for high-iron, fine-ground chromites. The current MAS study 
 is based on gravity and electrostatic beneficiation. Chemical 
 separation methods that use flotation or laterite leach-gravity 
 combinations are being investigated at Bureau of Mines 
 research facilities. These methods are discussed in appendix 
 C. 
 
 Data in table 4 indicates the range of costs estimated for 
 mining and beneficiating the material of the deposits 
 analyzed in this study. The mining costs have a large 
 variance due to the types and sizes of the operations; there is 
 less variance in the beneficiation costs because the same 
 basic process (gravity separation) is used at all the 
 operations. 
 
 Accordingly, a future cost reduction in underground mining 
 and/or gravity separation could have a significant impact on 
 the availability of domestic chromium. 
 
 At the demonstrated resource level, roughly 80 percent of 
 the contained Cr 2 3 would be produced by higher cost, larger 
 underground methods, 8 percent by larger open pit 
 operations, and 1 1 percent by larger placer operations; less 
 than 1 percent of the chromite production would be 
 attributable to smaller operations. 
 
 Table 4. — Estimated costs for mining and 
 beneficiating domestic chromite resources 
 
 (January 1981 dollars) 
 
 Type of 
 operation 
 
 Ore processed per 
 year, metric tons 
 
 Typical capital cost 
 
 per annual metric 
 
 ton of ore 
 
 Operating 
 metric tor 
 
 Mine 
 
 cost per 
 i of ore 3 
 
 
 Mine 1 Mill 2 
 
 Mill 
 
 Small placer . 
 Large placer . 
 
 Open pit 
 
 Underground. 
 
 . 20,000-50,000 
 Over 250,000 
 Over 250,000 
 Over 250,000 
 
 $3-$4 $14-$16 
 4- 6 13- 14 
 8-22 9- 18 
 
 21-36 16- 21 
 
 $2-$3 
 1- 2 
 4-11 
 
 16-33 
 
 $6-$ 10 
 4- 5 
 
 3- 4 
 
 4- 6 
 
 1 Mine capital costs include exploration, development, acquisition, mine 
 equipment, and mine plant. 
 
 2 Mill capital includes plant and equipment. 
 
 3 Operating costs include direct and indirect costs, but do not include 
 {fepreciation or interest. 
 
 AVAILABILITY OF CHROMIUM FROM DOMESTIC DEPOSITS 
 
 GENERAL 
 
 One function of the MAS program involves performing an 
 engineering cost study to determine the commodity price 
 required to produce a specified level of output from a mineral 
 deposit. Commodity price is defined as the average total cost 
 (ATC) of production from the deposit. Profit, included in the 
 estimate of ATC, is computed at a 1 5-percent DCFROR. The 
 commodity price can also be defined as the "incentive price" 
 of the deposit, or the price necessary for a firm to be willing to 
 develop the property, including recovery of and return on 
 capital investment (1, pp. 1-25). An illustration of the costing 
 and results of the economic evaluation of a hypothetical 
 chromium operation is included in appendix D. 
 
 The quantity of chromium that could be produced and the 
 commodity price required to achieve this production are 
 determined based on the following assumptions: 
 
 1 . Preproduction for each deposit began in January 1 981 . 
 
 2. Each operation will produce at full operating capacity 
 throughout its life. 
 
 3. Competition and demand conditions are such that each 
 operation will be able to sell all of its output at its ATC. 
 
 4. The competing market area for the chromium concen- 
 trates and ferrochrome is in the Eastern United States. 
 
 5. Prices for the chromite concentrates and ferrochrome 
 are CIF (i.e., cost, insurance, and freight paid by the shipper) 
 the marketing area in the Eastern United States. 
 
6. For comparative purposes, the price for chromite 
 concentrates is based upon the Cr 2 3 content. 
 
 7. Current tax structures and 100-percent equity were 
 used in all simulations. 
 
 The third assumption implies that the level of demand will 
 support the highest ATC, or that Government subsidies 
 would equal the difference between the market price and the 
 ATC for each submarginal deposit. 
 
 The fourth assumption states the basis for the established 
 prices with which domestic chromium production would 
 compete. Two market conditions were analyzed: 
 
 1 . Chromite concentrates would be transported and sold 
 to existing ferrochromium plants in the Eastern United 
 States. 
 
 2. Western chromite concentrates would be processed 
 into a ferrochromium product, with the assumption that 
 ferrochromium plants would be "constructed" at or near the 
 deposits. The ferrochromium product would then be trans- 
 ported to the market in the Eastern United States. The 
 chromite concentrates produced at the deposits in the 
 Eastern United States would be transported to existing 
 ferrochromium plants for further processing. 
 
 Time lags involved in filing environmental impact state- 
 ments, receiving necessary permits, financing, etc., were 
 considered, but were not included in the analysis since it was 
 felt that such delays would be minimized in consideration of 
 strategic availability. 
 
 With price and quantity data determined for each deposit, 
 total resource availability curves were constructed for 
 chromium. Total resource curves were constructed forCr 2 3 
 contained in chromite concentrates, and for ferrochromium. 
 The total resource availability curve is not a supply curve in 
 the traditional sense because it ignores the parameter of 
 time, nor is it the industry's marginal cost curve. Rather, the 
 resource availability curve is an aggregate of total production 
 potential from the industry at a stipulated commodity price 
 that covers the full cost of production. 
 
 Of primary concern to Government policymakers is not 
 only the question of how much total recoverable chromium 
 exists domestically, but also the amount that could be 
 recovered annually. When performing the engineering 
 analysis of each deposit, Bureau of Mines engineering 
 personnel proposed a development, schedule and capacities 
 for each deposit. Such factors as the relative location of the 
 deposit and the necessity for further exploration, develop- 
 ment, and plant construction affect the time required to 
 develop each deposit. Also, the depth of overburden, type of 
 mining method employed, and amount of infrastructure 
 required to develop the deposit are significant factors 
 influencing the time lag between initial development and 
 startup. 
 
 The annual curves presented in this study are disaggrega- 
 tions of the total resource curves to an annual production 
 basis. These discontinuous functions relate the level of ATC 
 for individual deposits to the cumulative level of produqtion 
 from the deposits over a period of a year. They more closely 
 resemble true supply curves, since they show production on 
 an annual basis, but they also indicate average total cost 
 rather than the marginal cost of production. Constructed 
 annual curves show the Cr 2 3 in concentrate and the 
 ferrochromium potentially recoverable from domestic de- 
 posits. 
 
 CHROMITE CONCENTRATE 
 AVAILABILITY 
 
 Chromium ores are classified according to their Cr 2 3 
 content, the Cr:Fe ratio of the concentrates, and, in the case 
 of refractory-grade ore, the total aluminum plus chromium 
 content. Traditionally, the nonrefractory materials are clas- 
 
 sified as high-chrome (metallurgical-grade) and high-iron 
 (chemical-grade) concentrates, as follows: 
 
 Percent Cr 2 3 Cr:Fe ratio 
 
 Metallurgical grade 
 Chemical grade . . 
 
 5= 46 
 
 40-46 
 
 2:1 
 .5:1 to 2:1 
 
 End use and price of the chrome concentrate is 
 determined by the Cr 2 3 content and Cr:Fe ratio. Tonnage 
 and price-cost relationships in this study are based on either 
 Cr 2 3 content of the concentrate, or ferrochromium. The mill 
 concentrate grade, Cr:Fe ratio, and chromite classification for 
 the material derived from the 34 deposits considered in this 
 study are shown in table 5. 
 
 Table 5. — Chromite concentrate data 
 
 Property 
 
 State 
 
 Mill concen- 
 
 Esti- 
 
 Chromite 
 
 
 
 trate grade, 
 
 mated 
 
 classifi- 
 
 
 
 pet Cr 2 3 
 
 Cr:Fe 
 ratio 
 
 cation' 
 
 Claim Point Alaska 
 
 Red Bluff Bay do 
 
 Red Mountain do 
 
 Bar Rick Mine California 
 
 McGuffy Creek do 
 
 North Elder Creek do 
 
 Pilliken Mine do 
 
 Seiad Creek/Emma do 
 
 Bell. 
 
 Louise Chromite Georgia 
 
 West Placer Area .... Maryland- 
 Pennsylvania. 
 
 Stillwater Complex: 
 
 Mouat/Benbow Montana 
 
 Gish Mine do 
 
 North Carolina Area . . North Carolina. 
 
 Oregon 
 
 Southwest Oregon 
 Beach Sands. 
 
 Renshaw Placer Pennsylvania 
 
 Casper Mountain Wyoming .... 
 
 45.0 
 42.0 
 44.0 
 
 2.7:1 
 
 2 1.6:1 
 
 3:1 
 
 HC 
 
 HI 
 HC 
 
 44.0 
 41.5 
 44.0 
 44.0 
 41.5 
 
 2.4:1 
 
 2.5:1 
 
 3:1 
 
 1.5-2.7:1 
 
 1.5-2.4:1 
 
 HC 
 HC 
 HC 
 HC 
 HI 
 
 31.0 
 
 1.9:1 
 
 HI 
 
 38.7 
 
 1.6:1 
 
 HI 
 
 42.4 
 41.2 
 
 1.7:1 
 1.7:1 
 
 HI 
 HI 
 
 55.0 
 
 1.9:1 
 
 HI 
 
 42.0 
 
 1.5:1 
 
 HI 
 
 40.0 
 
 2 1.6:1 
 
 HI 3 
 
 44.7 
 
 2.4:1 
 
 HC 
 
 1 Concentrate grade is based on grade categories as specified in Mineral 
 Facts and Problems (12). High-chromium (HC) concentrates have tradi- 
 tionally been used by the metallurgical industry, while high-iron (HI) has 
 traditionally been used by the chemical industry. The HC grades listed here 
 would be marginal; they show a Cr:Fe ratio of greater than 2:1 but a Cr 2 3 
 grade greater than or equal to only 44 percent. 
 
 2 No Cr:Fe ratio was specified, but the grade "chemical" was given. Such 
 specifications were assumed to give a Cr:Fe ratio of 1.6:1. 
 
 3 Concentrate from this deposit may be classified as refractory grade. The 
 ore contains more than 20 percent aluminum oxide (Al 2 3 ) and more than 
 60 percent Al 2 3 plus Cr 2 3 . 
 
 Since the value of the material is based upon quality, 
 prices shown in the tables and illustrations in this study are 
 based on the Cr 2 3 content of the concentrates. (The 
 concentrates consist of an oxide of iron and chromium — 
 FeCr 2 4 .) Therefore, to permit a comparison of the cost of 
 potential production from domestic sources to imported 
 material used by the U.S. industry, the chromite prices of the 
 imported material were converted to equivalent Cr 2 3 
 content price by dividing the current market prices by the 
 associated Cr 2 3 grade. 
 
 According to current industry information, the pricing 
 structure for chemical-grade material having a Cr:Fe ratio 
 ranging from 1.5:1 to 2.0:1, and aCr 2 3 grade ranging from 
 39 to 46 percent, ranges from $74 to $85 per metric ton CIF 
 the marketing area of the Eastern United States. Similarly, 
 the pricing structure for metallurgical-grade material having a 
 Cr:Fe ratio of from 3.0:1 to 3.9:1 , and a Cr 2 3 grade from 46 
 to 53 percent, ranges from $128 to $144 per metric ton CIF 
 the marketing area of the Eastern united States. 
 
 For purposes of deriving a price with which domestic 
 production could compete, the price assumed in this study 
 
was $79 per metric ton CIF the United States for 
 chemical-grade chromite with a 40-percent-Cr.-O 3 content. A 
 price of $136 per metric ton CIF the United States was used 
 as the competitive price for a metallurgical-grade chromite 
 with a 46-percent-CnOji content. These prices, converted to 
 metric tons of contained Cr 2 3 , are as follows: 
 
 Chemical-grade, metric 
 ton 
 
 Metallurgical-grade, 
 metric ton 
 
 Chromite 
 
 market price 
 
 (CIF United 
 
 States) 
 
 $ 79 
 136 
 
 Price of 
 
 contained 
 
 Cr 2 Q 3 
 
 $198 
 296 
 
 Total Chromite 
 
 Total chromite availability at the demonstrated and 
 identified resource level is shown in figure 4. Metallurgical- 
 grade chromite is shown with dotted lines and chemical- 
 grade chromite with solid lines. 
 
 In the analysis, the incentive price and associate tonnage 
 for the identified resource can vary from that for the 
 demonstrated resource. Some properties included in this 
 study have the same tonnage at the demonstrated and 
 identified resource levels (table 1). In these instances, the 
 incentive price remains constant. Other properties have 
 increased tonnage at the identified level, because they have 
 additional inferred tonnage. The incentive price could 
 decrease owning to the additional tonnage, which would 
 increase the life of the operation, thus allowing the capital 
 expenditure to be amortized by additional recoverable units. 
 Some properties have only inferred tonnages, thus increas- 
 ing the total identified resource. The incentive price would 
 apply to this inferred tonnage. 
 
 At the demonstrated resource level, 4.6 million metric tons 
 of Cr 2 3 in chromite concentrates are potentially recoverable 
 over a production period of 48 years. At the identified 
 resource level, potentially recoverable Cr 2 3 increases about 
 240 percent, to 15.6 million metric tons over a production 
 period of 59 years. 
 
 Table 6 shows potential recovery of metallurgical- and 
 chemical-grade chromite at various commodity prices. 
 Nearly 90 percent of the resources at the demonstrated level, 
 and over 70 percent at the identified level, would be 
 chemical-grade chromite. 
 
 Table 6. — Potential recoverable Cr 2 3 contained 
 
 in chromite concentrates at various prices, 
 
 thousand metric tons 
 
 (January 1981 dollars) 
 
 Cr-,0 Drice' Demonstrated level Identified level 
 
 per metric ton Chemical Metallurgical Chemical Metallurgical 
 
 Less than $600 . . . 3,840 10,650 3,850 
 
 $600-$900 60 400 110 370 
 
 $901-$1200 190 70 460 120 
 
 More than $1200 20 30 20 30 
 
 Total 4,110 500 11,240 4,370 
 
 ' Price based on a metric ton of contained Cr 2 3 . 
 
 At the current market price for chemical-grade chromite, 
 $1 98 per metric ton of contained Cr 2 3 , no domestic chromite 
 is economically available at either the demonstrated or 
 identified resource level. In addition, no metallurgical-grade 
 chromite could be economically produced at the demon- 
 strated level, assuming today's market price of $296 per 
 metric ton of contained Cr 2 3 . 
 
 Annual Chromite 
 
 Based on Cr 2 3 content, annual domestic consumption of 
 chromite in 1979 was 441 ,000 metric tons. Consumers were 
 the metallurgical industry (high-chrome chromite) — 64 per- 
 cent, the chemical industry (high-iron chromite) — 22 percent, 
 
 2,000 
 
 n=bose year of analysis, 
 ~ preproduction begins 
 
 1,600 
 
 1,400 
 
 1,200 
 
 1,000- 
 800 
 600: 
 400- 
 200 
 
 n + 4 
 
 Metallurgical-grade chromite 
 Chemical-grade chromite 
 n+2 
 
 Demonstrated resources 
 
 _l 
 
 50 
 
 100 
 
 200 
 
 300 
 
 2,400 
 o" 2,200 
 
 CSJ 
 
 o 2,000 
 
 a 
 
 £ 1,800 
 
 * X '.600 
 
 <-> -g I.' 
 
 z _ 
 
 o a> i,200 
 
 v- m 
 
 Si ? 1,000 
 
 !: g 800- 
 
 2 -> 
 
 a: 600 
 
 Q. 
 
 40C- 
 
 o 
 
 £ 200 
 
 a. 
 
 
 
 Demonstrated 
 resources 
 
 Metallurgical-grade chromite 
 Chemical-grade chromite 
 
 I 
 
 Identified resources 
 
 / 
 
 _L 
 
 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 
 TOTAL RECOVERABLE Cr 2 3 CONTAINED IN CHROMITE CONCENTRATES, 
 thousand metric tons 
 
 Figure 4. — Chromium total resource availability, 
 1 5-percent rate off return. 
 
 2,000 
 
 1,800 
 
 1,600 
 
 I 1,400 
 
 i 1,200 
 
 ! 1,000 
 
 800 
 600 
 
 400 
 
 200 
 
 
 
 1 1 1 
 
 n=bose year of analysis, 
 preproductiort begins 
 
 Metallurgical-grade chromite 
 
 Chemical-grade chromite 
 
 Identified resources 
 
 J 
 
 1 
 
 n + IOn+6 
 
 J J 
 
 200 
 
 300 
 
 RECOVERABLE Cr 2 3 CONTAINED IN CHROMITE CONCENTRATES, 
 thousand metric tons 
 
 Figure 5. — Chromium annual resource 
 availability, 1 5-percent rate of return. 
 
and the refractory industry — 14 percent. Consumption in 
 1979 was at the highest level since 1974. 
 
 Although no chromite is being produced by U.S. mines, 
 potential annual production (based on Cr 2 03 content) is 
 shown in figure 5; metallurgical-grade chromite is shown with 
 dotted lines and chemical-grade with solid lines. As shown in 
 the figure, at the demonstrated resource level and at a price 
 of about $600 per metric ton (significantly above current 
 market price), an estimated 35,000 metric tons could be 
 produced 2 years after preproduction begins. At $600 per 
 metric ton, production could increase to 140,000 metric tons 
 in year 4, but would begin to decrease shortly thereafter. As 
 mentioned earlier, this decrease reflects the static nature of 
 this study. Future technological developments, the discovery 
 of additional ore bodies, and an increase in commodity price 
 would, with time, reduce the effect of scarcity, and shift the 
 curves to the right. 
 
 Potential annual production would increase at the iden- 
 tified resource level because of the addition of properties that 
 are not defined at the demonstrated resource level, and also 
 because of expanded production at operations located on 
 smaller demonstrated reserves. At a $600 commodity price, 
 nearly 400,000 metric tons could be produced after 2 years. 
 
 As shown in figure 5, chromite produced from domestic 
 sources would, in most cases, cost significantly more to 
 produce than that currently being imported. At the demon- 
 strated resource level, possible annual production would be 
 small and of short duration, decreasing after the fourth year. 
 At the identified level, production could be significantly 
 greater and could remain fairly constant for at least 1 years. 
 
 FERROCHROMIUM CONCENTRATE 
 AVAILABILITY 
 
 Commercial ferrochrome production dates back to the 
 1860's, when low-grade ferrochrome averaging 7 to 8 
 percent chromium was produced by direction reduction of 
 chromite and chromiferrous iron ores with coke or coal in a 
 blast furnace. By the 1 870's, ferrochrome containing 30 to 40 
 percent chromium was produced by using higher blast 
 furnace temperatures and larger quantities of coke. With the 
 development of the electric arc furnace, however, chromite 
 ore can be processed to high-carbon ferrochromium 
 containing 67 to 71 percent chromium. Chromite and coke 
 are fed into the furnace, the ore is reduced, and the 
 ferrochromium collects at the bottom of the furnace. A 
 high-carbon ferrochromium suitable for low-alloy steels is 
 produced. The product, however, is not suitable for 
 high-chromium steels, such as stainless steel, where 
 low-carbon ferrochromium is needed. Low-carbon ferrochro- 
 mium is produced by smelting chromites or high-carbon 
 ferrochromium in the presence of silicon. 
 
 Development of the argon-oxygen decarburization (AOD) 
 process for making stainless steel made it possible for a 
 lower grade ferrochromium, known as charge chromium, to 
 be marketed. In the AOD process, an adapted converter 
 vessel blows out impurities with a mixture of oxygen and inert 
 argon gas. 
 
 Additional processing and transportation charges would be 
 incurred in the production of ferrochromium from chromite. 
 However, because ferrochromium is a refined product, it 
 commands a higher price than chromite. Two ferrochromium 
 products examined in this study are a low-chrome ferrochro- 
 mium containing 52 percent chrome and a high-chrome 
 ferrochromium containing 65 percent chrome. Over 91 
 percent of the resources at the demonstrated level and 84 
 percent at the identified level could be produced to a 
 low-chrome ferrochromium. 
 
 Market prices for low-chrome and high-chrome ferrochro- 
 mium are about the same per pound of contained chromium; 
 however, because of the higher chromium content of 
 high-chrome ferrochromium, the price per metric ton is much 
 greater. Prices as of December 1980 are shown below: 
 
 Cents per pound Dollars per 
 contained metric, ton 
 
 chromium ferrochromium 
 
 Low-chrome ferrochromium 
 (50-55 percent chromium). . 
 High-chrome ferrochromium 
 (60-65 percent chromium). . 
 
 45.5-47.5 
 46.0-52.0 
 
 502-576 
 609-745 
 
 For this study, the grades selected were 52 and 65 percent 
 for the low-chrome and high-chrome ferrochromium pro- 
 ducts, respectively. The comparative price of imports CIF the 
 United States, with which the domestic ferrochrome products 
 would compete, are as follows: 
 
 Low-chrome ferrochromium 
 
 (52 percent chromium) $522 per metric ton. 
 
 High-chrome ferrochromium 
 
 (65 percent chromium) $666 per metric ton. 
 
 Recoverable ferrochromium, at both the demonstrated and 
 identified levels, is illustrated in figure 6. The solid lines on 
 the curve indicate low-chrome ferrochromium, and the dotted 
 lines show high-chrome ferrochromium. At a current market 
 price of $522 per metric ton for low-chrome ferrochromium 
 and $666 for high-chrome ferrochromium, there are no 
 economically recoverable domestic chromium resources. 
 Recoverable quantities of the low- and high chrome products 
 at various ferrochromium prices are shown on table 7. 
 
 Annual potential availability curves for ferrochromium are 
 illustrated in figure 7. High-chrome ferrochromium is shown 
 with dotted lines and low-chrome with solid lines. Most 
 low-chrome ferrochromium is available at a price below $800 
 per metric ton, whereas all high-chrome ferrochromium 
 would cost more than $800. 
 
 400 
 200 
 OOO 
 800 
 ,600 
 400 
 ,200 
 ,000 
 800 
 600 
 400 
 200 
 
 
 1 r ' 
 
 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 
 Low-chrome ferrochromium 
 
 - 
 
 Demonstrated 
 resources 
 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 f 
 
 :—" 
 
 - 
 
 
 rJ 
 
 Identified resources 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 1 1 
 
 1 1 1 — 1 1 1 
 
 - 
 
 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 
 TOTAL RECOVERABLE FERROCHROMIUM, thousand metric tons 
 
 Figure 6. — Ferrochromium total resource 
 availability, 1 5-percent rate of return. 
 
 Table 7 Potential recoverable ferrochromium 
 
 at various ferrochromium prices, thousand 
 metric tons 
 
 (January 1981 dollars) 
 
 Ferrochromium 
 price per 
 metric ton 1 
 
 Demonstrated 
 
 Low- 
 chrome 
 
 resources 
 
 High- 
 chrome 
 
 Identified 
 
 Low- 
 chrome 
 
 resources 
 High- 
 chrome 
 
 Less than $800 . . , 
 
 $800-$1200 
 
 More than $1200 . 
 
 4,130 
 
 760 
 
 20 
 
 
 
 
 
 480 
 
 12,380 
 
 680 
 
 20 
 
 
 
 4,320 
 
 150 
 
 Total 
 
 4,910 
 
 480 
 
 13,080 
 
 4,470 
 
10 
 
 i ooo 
 
 I.800 
 
 1,600 
 
 1.400 
 
 1.200 
 
 1.000 
 
 800 
 
 600 
 
 400 
 
 ■ 200 
 
 2,000 
 1.800 
 1,600 
 1,400 
 1,200 
 1,000 
 8O0- 
 
 600 
 
 200- 
 
 n + 9 
 
 n + 2 
 
 ■I 
 
 n + 
 
 r 
 
 n = base year of analysis, 
 preproductton begins 
 
 • High-chrome ferrochromium 
 - Low-chrome ferrochromium 
 
 Demonstrated resources 
 
 100 
 
 n=bose year of anolysis, 
 preproduction begins 
 
 High-chrome ferrochromium 
 Low-chrome ferrochromium 
 
 n + 9n + 5 
 
 Identified resources 
 
 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 
 
 RECOVERABLE FERROCHROMIUM, thousand metric tons 
 
 Figure 7. — Ferrochromium annual resource 
 availability, 15-percent rate of return. 
 
 Within the past decade an increasing amount of our 
 chromium imports have been in the form of ferrochrome; our 
 import dependency has shifted from chromium ore to 
 ferrochrome, as chromite-producing countries have built their 
 own ferrochrome plants in an effort to enhance their export 
 revenues. There is understandable concern over the future 
 viability of our domestic ferrochrome industry, since trans- 
 portation costs favor the production of ferrochrome near the 
 source of the ore; and this concern is intensified by the rising 
 costs of domestic labor, capital, energy, and pollution control. 
 This trend could further reduce our domestic ferrochrome 
 capacity, and could have a significant impact on any future 
 plans for the development of domestic chromium resources. 
 
 It should be noted that any substantial increase in the 
 market price of ferrochromium would probably not be met 
 with a corresponding increase in domestic ferrochromium 
 capacity, since the incentive for increasing domestic 
 ferrochrome capacity would probably be restrained by the 
 limited life of domestic chromium production. 
 
 CONCLUSIONS 
 
 In most instances, metallurgical-grade chromium from 
 domestic deposits would cost significantly more to produce 
 (a minimum market price of $237 per metric ton of chromite) 
 than the current market price ($128 to $144). Chemical- 
 grade chromite production would require a market price in 
 excess of S1 88 per metric ton of chromite; the current market 
 price is $74 to $85. Based on current known domestic 
 resources, production would be relatively small and of short 
 duration. At the demonstrated resource level, an estimated 
 4.6 million metric tons of Cr 2 3 in chromite concentrates 
 could be recovered over a production period of 48 years. 
 Recoverable tonnage increases to 1 5.6 million metric tons at 
 the identified resource level. Most of the chromite would be 
 
 suitable for use by the chemical and/or metallurgical 
 industries. 
 
 Analyses of the potential availability of the ferrochromium 
 produced from domestic concentrates, and costs of process- 
 ing, transporting, and producing ferrochromium from chro- 
 mite concentrate resulted in two products: low-chrome and 
 high-chrome ferrochromium. Over 91 percent of the re- 
 sources at the demonstrated level and 84 percent at the 
 identified level could be produced to a low-chrome ferrochro- 
 mium. 
 
 At the current market prices for low-chrome ($522) and 
 high-chrome ferrochromium ($666), there are no domestic 
 chromium resources that could be economically produced. 
 
11 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 1. Arthur D. Little, Inc. Economic Impact of Environmental 
 Regulations on the United States Copper Industry. Rept. to the U.S. 
 Environmental Protection Agency, January 1978, contract 68-01-2842; 
 available from the American Mining Congress, Washington, D.C. 
 
 2. Bennett, H.J., J.G. Thompson, H.J. Quiring, and J.E. Toland. 
 Financial Evaluation of Mineral Deposits Using Sensitivity and 
 Probabilistic Analysis Methods. BuMines IC 8495, 1970, 82 pp. 
 
 3. Charles River Associates. Chromite: Market Analysis and 
 Econometric Model. Prepared for U.S. General Services Administra- 
 tion, Cambridge, Mass., June 1973, p. 6. 
 
 4. Clement, G.K., Jr., R.L. Miller, P.A. Seibert, L. Avery, and H. 
 Bennett. Capital and Operating Cost Estimating System Manual for 
 Mining and Beneficiation of Metallic and Nonmetallic Minerals Except 
 Fossil Fuels in the United States and Canada. BuMines Special Pub., 
 1980, 149 pp. Also available as: STRAAM Engineers, Inc. Capital and 
 Operating Cost Estimating System Handbook — Mining and Beneficia- 
 tion of Metallic and Nonmetallic Minerals Except Fossil Fuels in the 
 United States and Canada. Submitted to the Bureau of Mines under 
 contract JO255026, 1 977, 374 pp. 
 
 5. Daellenbach, C.B., R.E. Siemes, and D.E. Kirby. Nickel, Cobalt, 
 and Chromium From Domestic Laterites. Sec. in Research 1979. 
 BuMines Special Pub., p. 44. 
 
 6. Davidoff, R.L. Supply Analysis Model (SAM): A Minerals 
 Availability System Methodology. BuMines IC 8820, 1979, 45 pp. 
 
 7. Dickson, T. Chromite, Southern Africa Holds Sway. Ind. Miner. 
 (London), v. 150, March 1980, p. 56. 
 
 8. Harris, D.L. Chemical Upgrading of Stillwater Chromite. Trans. 
 SME/AIME, v. 229, No. 3, September 1964, pp. 267-281. 
 
 9. Kusik, C.L., H.V. Makar, and M.R. Mounier. Availability of Critical 
 Scrap Metals Containing Chromium in the United States. Wrought 
 Stainless Steels and Heat-Resisting Alloys. BuMines IC 8822, 1980, 51 
 pp. 
 
 10. National Materials Advisory Board. Contingency Plans for 
 Chromium Utilization. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, 
 D.C, NMAB-335, 1978, p. 347. 
 
 11. Stermole F.J. Economic Evaluation and Investment Decision 
 Methods. Investment Evaluations Corp., Golden, Colo., 1974, 443 pp. 
 
 12. U.S. Bureau of Mines. Highlights, Aug. 27, 1979, p. 7. 
 
 13. Mineral Facts and Problems. Chapter on Chromium, 
 
 1976 and 1980. 
 
 14. U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Bureau of Mines. Principles of 
 a Resource/Reserve Classification for Minerals. U.S. Geol. Survey 
 Circ. 831, 1980, 5 pp. 
 
12 
 
 APPENDIX A 
 
 Table A-1. — Ownership and control of domestic chromium properties 
 
 Property name Domain Type of mineral holding Owner Percent of 
 ownership 
 
 Claim Point . . . . . Federal Patented Union Carbide 50 
 
 State lease Joe Manga 50 
 
 Red Blutt Bay National forest Minerals only NA NA 
 
 Red Mountain State Patented R. S. Richards 10 
 
 Union Carbide 84 
 
 Kenai Chrome Co 6 
 
 California: 
 
 Bar Rick Mine Private Private lease Collins H. McClendon 50 
 
 Inspiration Development Co 50 
 
 Gasquet Laterite National forest Located claim California Nickel Corp 1 00 
 
 Little Rattlesnake do do Del Norte Mining Co 100 
 
 Lower Elk Camp do do California Nickel Corp 100 
 
 McGuffy Creek do do Elmer Weeks 100 
 
 North Elder Creek do Unknown California State 100 
 
 Pilliken Mine Private Patented Red Line Transfer Co 100 
 
 Located claim 
 
 Pine Flat Mountain National forest do Hanna Mining Co 100 
 
 Red Mountain Mixed do do 1 00 
 
 Private lease 
 
 Fee ownership 
 
 Seiad Creek Emma Bell National Forest Located claim U.S. Chrome 100 
 
 r^„r„;,- Patented 
 
 Georgia: 
 
 Louise Chromite Private Fee ownership Numerous misc 100 
 
 Maryland: 
 
 Cherry Hill Private Fee ownership H. Pleasant, Jr 100 
 
 Dolfield do Unknown F. A. Dolfield 100 
 
 Gore Placer do Fee ownership Paul D. Gore 100 
 
 Private lease 
 
 " State lease 
 
 Lutz Chromite do Unknown A. Lutz 100 
 
 Marshall do Fee ownership' E. T. Marshall 100 
 
 Old Triplett State Unknown NA NA 
 
 Riley Sand Private do H. M. Riley 100 
 
 Triplett State do NA NA 
 
 West Placer Private do Mrs. Paul West 1 00 
 
 Montana: 
 
 Benbow Mine National forest Patented Anaconda 100 
 
 Gish Mine do do Monte Vista Co 100 
 
 Mouat Mine do do Anaconda • 100 
 
 North Carolina: 
 
 Holcome Private Unknown NA NA 
 
 Leichester do Fee ownership NA NA 
 
 Minerals only 
 
 Morgan Hill do Unknown NA 
 
 NA 
 
 Oregon: 
 
 Eight Dollar Mountain Mixed Located claim Numerous misc 1 00 
 
 Private lease 
 
 Red Flat do Located claim Red Flats Nickel 59 
 
 Big Basin Nickel 13 
 
 Hanna Mining Co 28 
 
 Rough and Ready do do Inspiration Development Co 95 
 
 Private lease Walt Freeman 5 
 
 Southwest Oregon Beach Sands. Private Fee ownership NA NA 
 
 Other 
 
 Woodcock Mixed Located claim Hanna Mining Co 80 
 
 Inspiration Development Co 15 
 
 California Nickel Corp 5 
 
 Pennsylvania: 
 
 A. T. Reynolds Private Unknown .\ NA NA 
 
 Kirk Sand do Fee ownership Mrs. E. Kirk 100 
 
 Slaymaker do do S. R. Slaymaker 100 
 
 Private lease 
 
 Minerals only 
 
 Renshaw Placer do Fee ownership NA NA 
 
 Minerals only 
 
 Private lease 
 
 Wet Pit Slaymaker do Unknown Slaymaker Lock Co NA 
 
 Wyoming: 
 
 Casper Mountain Mixed Patented Consolidated Mining Co NA 
 
 Fee ownership Wyoming Baptist Convention NA 
 
 City of Casper NA 
 
 NA Not available. 
 
APPENDIX B.— MINING METHODS 
 
 13 
 
 The underground shrinkage-stoping mining method has 
 been proposed for the Mouat, Benbow, and Gish deposits in 
 the Stillwater Complex. Included in the development plan are 
 rehabilitation of old mine workings and development of the 
 main haulage drifts and service shafts at Mouat and Benbow, 
 as well as preproduction development of the stopes and ore 
 passes. At all three properties, the broken ore would be 
 transported underground by rail to a centrally located mill 
 near the portal at the Mouat Mine. 
 
 The deposits in Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, 
 Oregon, and Pennsylvania are small placer and residual 
 deposits that could be surface mined with front-end loaders 
 and trucks, and beneficiated by centrally located or portable 
 concentrating units. 
 
 The Bar Rick, McGuffy Creek, North Elder Creek, Pilliken, 
 and Seiad Creek deposits of northern California are past 
 producers of chromite. 
 
 Access to the Bar Rick deposit is proposed by driving a 
 main haulage level adit, with the mill near the portal. 
 Preproduction would include driving this level, raising a 
 service and ventilation shaft, and preparing other stope and 
 intermediate levels for the mining that occurs above the main 
 level. Haulage would be by LHD units in the upper workings, 
 and by trolley locomotive on the main level. 
 
 The old Emma Bell and Seiad Creek mine workings lie on 
 slopes of ridges above the east and west forks of Seiad 
 Creek. Because the ore zone can be observed in a 
 discontinuous outcrop, open pit mining using front-end 
 loaders and trucks is proposed; little overburden removal or 
 clearing is necessary. 
 
 At the Pilliken deposit, over 1 1 separate ore mineraliza- 
 tions have been identified, and a surface mine operation from 
 three pits has been proposed. Mining would be by power 
 shovels and trucks. Five separate pits are proposed to mine 
 the McGuffy Creek area, utilizing front-end loaders and 
 trucks for both ore and waste removal. 
 
 Open pit mining is proposed in the North Elder Creek area. 
 Removing overburden would be necessary, since the 
 deposits are covered by landslide and slope-wash debris. 
 
 Three pits are proposed; mining would be by front-end 
 loaders and trucks. 
 
 The Red Bluff Bay deposit in Alaska is composed of 
 several mineralized areas. The chromite occurs in small 
 lenses, thin layers, and disseminated grains in ultramafic 
 rocks. Glaciation has removed much of the overburden. 
 Mining from this deposit area would be by front-end loaders 
 and trucks from five open pits. 
 
 The Claim Point deposit in Alaska also is composed of 
 numerous individual chromite occurrences. The deposits are 
 near the surface, and open pit mining using front-end loaders 
 and trucks is also proposed for this area. 
 
 The Red Mountain, Alaska, deposit is composed of 
 numerous small ore bodies, some of which have produced 
 chromite. The chromite occurs in banded layers within the 
 ultramafic. Proposed is a small underground mining opera- 
 tion using shrinkage stoping, with transportation by rubber- 
 tired transloaders. 
 
 Mining the Casper Mountain deposit, Wyoming, would be 
 by open pit methods. The chromite occurs as disseminated 
 grains throughout a schist. Mining of ore and waste rock 
 would include percussion drilling, blasting, front-end loading, 
 and truck hauling. The relatively thin overburden would be 
 removed by self-loading scrapers. 
 
 The California-Oregon nickeliferous laterites are of signi- 
 ficant lateral extent, limited depth, and low grade. The 
 laterites could be mined by surface methods. The overbur- 
 den would be ripped and bulldozed, and the lateritic soil 
 extracted by front-end loaders and hauled by trucks to a 
 central screening area. Large boulders would be separated 
 from the weathered soil and discarded. The laterite soil would 
 then be chemically treated to separate cobalt, nickel, and 
 chromite. One of the proposed chemical processes is being 
 developed at the Bureau of Mines Albany (Oreg.) Research 
 Center. To evaluate the Bureau's technology, a pilot plant 
 was recently built to process domestic laterite samples at a 
 rate of 4.5 to 7 metric tons per day. Since this process has 
 not been tested on a commercial scale, the laterite deposit 
 were not included in the availability analysis in this study. 
 
 APPENDIX C— RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 
 
 Research has been conducted on chemical concentration 
 of chromite ores; however, no commercial operations have 
 occurred. Processes researched include selective reduction 
 of iron from chromite, partial reduction and acid leaching of 
 iron in a chromium ore, alteration of chromite structure 
 followed by gravity concentration, hydrogen-reduction of 
 chromium from chromium chloride, production of calcium 
 chromite and chromic oxide, and acid decomposition of 
 chromites. 
 
 A process that would recover cobalt and nickel from 
 domestic laterites has been investigated at the Bureau of 
 Mines Albany (Oreg.) Research Center. This process entails 
 reducing of oxides in the laterite, ammoniacal-ammonium 
 sulfate leaching, nickel and cobalt solvent extraction, and 
 electrowinning. Chromite in the laterite remains insoluble in 
 the leaching process, and normally reports to tails; however, 
 this residue can be beneficiated to recover chromite 
 concentrates containing an average 27.2-percent-Cr 2 3 
 content (leach residue contains only 2.3 percent chromium). 
 The residue would first be fed to a high-shear dispersion mill 
 and separated by screening at 65 mesh and by hydroclone 
 separation. The oversize is discarded, and the undersize is 
 sent to low-intensity magnetic separation where iron oxide is 
 separated and discarded. The nonmagnetic chromites are 
 
 then classified and concentrated, principally by tabling. 
 Slime-table middlings are acid scrambled and upgraded with 
 a high-intensity wet-magnetic process. Overall recovery is 
 less than 50 percent of the chromium contained in the leach 
 residue. The concentrate produced is of a lower grade than 
 current chromite concentrates. Studies are being conducted 
 on possible concentrate use. 
 
 In 1977, the Bureau of Mines Salt Lake City (Utah) 
 Research Center initiated a study into the beneficiation of 
 low-grade chromite ores from the Stillwater Complex. These 
 studies investigated gravity concentration, flotation, heavy 
 media, and magnetic separation as a means of making an 
 upgraded concentrate suitable for the ferrochrome market. 
 Test results from Albany Research Center indicated that an 
 acceptable grade of ferrochromium can be produced from a 
 gravity concentrate by submerged arc melting. A combined 
 spiral and table-separation technique was successful in 
 upgrading ore from 19 to 41 percent Cr 2 3 with an overall 
 92-percent recovery. Magnetic separation of the gravity 
 concentrate, which will increase the Cr:Fe ratio from 1.7 to 
 1.9, has been more recently investigated in a 100-pound-per- 
 hour process investigation unit, and achieved a 43-percent- 
 Cr 2 3 concentrate with a recovery of 87 to 91 percent. 
 
14 
 
 APPENDIX D.— COST ANALYSIS OF AN OPEN PIT MINING AND MILLING OPERATION 
 
 This appendix contains a brief example of a hypothetical 
 1 ,900-metric-ton-per-day open pit mining and milling opera- 
 tion, in order to illustrate the costing and economic evaluation 
 categories used in this study. 
 
 For each deposit, an engineering and cost estimate was 
 made to assess the economic feasibility of recovering 
 chromium from that deposit. A mine and mill development 
 plan was proposed based on the reserve or resource, 
 geology, geometry, and mineralogy of the deposit, and 
 standard industry technologies that were applicable. The 
 various components of the development were then costed, 
 including exploration, acquisition, mine preproduction de- 
 velopment, mine plant and equipment, mill plant and 
 equipment, mine and mill operating costs, and any proposed 
 infrastructure costs. These costs were based upon proposed 
 equipment lists, scaling costs from similar operations, or by 
 other cost estimating procedures. One such estimating 
 procedure is the Bureau of Mines Cost Estimating System 
 (CES) (70), which enables an engineer to cost an operation 
 based on unit processes and estimated engineering param- 
 eters. A summary of the capital cost requirements for a 
 hypothetical chromium property assumed to open pit mine 
 1 .900 metric tons per day of ore and 1 ,000 metric tons per 
 day of waste, appears in table D-1 ; the operating costs are 
 illustrated in table D-2. 
 
 Table D-1. — Estimated capital requirements for 
 
 a 1 ,900-metric-ton-per-day open pit mining and 
 
 milling operation 
 
 Cost 
 
 Mine lease-option cost, property acquisition $200,000 
 
 Exploration and engineering study 300,000 
 
 Preproduction stripping: 11,300,000 tons 
 
 at SO. 20 per ton 755,000 
 
 Mine plant and buildings 834,000 
 
 Mine pit equipment 2,167,000 
 
 Mill plant and equipment 1 2,574,000 
 
 Working capital 1 0,773,000 
 
 Total capital required 27,603,000 
 
 After this cost estimation has been completed, an 
 economic evaluation is made in order to determine the 
 incentive price of chromium necessary to cover these 
 estimated costs, with a desired rate of return on the capital 
 investment. For this example, the 15-percent DCFROR 
 incentive price required to produce ferrochrome concentrate 
 was estimated at $1,167 per metric ton, in January 1981 
 dollars. Table D-3 contains data used in the evaluation; table 
 D-4 contains the cumulative financial values derived for the 
 economic evaluation. 
 
 Table D-3. — Deposit operating data required for 
 economic evaluation of the 1 ,900-metric-ton-per- 
 day open pit mining and milling operation 
 
 Category description 
 and units 
 
 Exploration dollars 
 
 Land acquisition do , . 
 
 Mining preparation do . . 
 
 Do do . . 
 
 Mine plant do. . 
 
 Mine equipment do . . 
 
 Mill plant 
 
 and equipment do . . 
 
 Working capital do . . 
 
 Mine operating cost, 
 
 per ton ore do . . 
 
 Mill operating cost, 
 
 per ton ore do . . 
 
 Ore mined per year tons , . 
 
 Chromium: 
 
 Feed grade pet Cr . . 
 
 Mill recovery pet . . 
 
 Concentrate grade pet Cr. . 
 
 Smelter recovery pet . . 
 
 Smelter grade pet Cr. . 
 
 Smelter operating cost, 
 
 per ton chromite 
 
 concentrate dollars 
 
 Transportation to market, 
 per ton ferrochrome do . 
 
 Year of 
 
 occurrence 
 
 Annual 
 
 Begin 
 
 End 
 
 category value 
 
 . 1981 
 1981 
 1981 
 1983 
 
 1981 
 1981 
 1982 
 1983 
 
 300,000 
 
 200,000 
 
 356,200 
 
 42,300 
 
 1981 
 1981 
 
 1983 
 1983 
 
 278,100 
 722,300 
 
 1981 
 1984 
 
 1983 
 1984 
 
 4,191,300 
 10,773,000 
 
 1984 
 
 1993 
 
 5.32 
 
 1984 
 1984 
 
 1993 
 1993 
 
 4.13 
 570,000 
 
 1984 
 1984 
 1984 
 1984 
 1984 
 
 1993 
 1993 
 1993 
 1993 
 1993 
 
 3.4 
 85 
 28.4 
 90 
 65 
 
 > 1984 
 
 1993 
 
 170 
 
 1984 
 
 1993 
 
 200 
 
 Table D-2. — Estimated operating costs for a 
 
 1 ,900-metric-ton-per-day open pit mining and 
 
 milling operation 
 
 (Dollars per metric ton of ore) 
 Operation Labor Equipment Material Total 
 
 Surface Mining: 
 
 Production development $0.68 $0.45 $0.12 $1 .25 
 
 Mining of ore 1 .70 1 .22 .35 3.27 
 
 Restoration during 
 
 production <.01 <.01 .04 04 
 
 General operations 31 .02 .06 .39 
 
 General administrative 
 
 expense .33 £1 .03 .37 
 
 Total mining operating 
 costs 3.02 1.70 .60 5.32 
 
 Beneficiation: 
 
 Crushing $0.31 $0.17 $0.07 $0.55 
 
 Grinding 41 .44 .20 1 .05 
 
 Concentrating 78 .08 .34 1 .20 
 
 Waste and tailings disposal 12 .02 .06 .20 
 
 General (water supply, etc.) .34 .13 14 .61 
 
 General administrative 
 
 expense .47 01 04 .52 
 
 Total beneficiation 
 operating costs 2.43 .85 .85 4.13 
 
 Table D-4. — Cumulative values derived for the 
 economic evaluation of the 1 ,900-metric-ton-per- 
 day open pit mining and milling operation 
 
 Value 
 
 Revenues 1 $266,123,000 
 
 Royalties 
 
 Total depreciation 15.575,100 
 
 Depletion used 26,254,100 
 
 Investment tax credit 1 ,557,500 
 
 Property taxes 798,900 
 
 Severance taxes 
 
 State income taxes 2,218,700 
 
 Federal income taxes 11,161,800 
 
 Cash flow 37,025,400 
 
 1 The nickel price calculated to produce these revenues at a 15-percent rate 
 of return of and on capital was $1,166,758 per metric ton of ferrochrome. 
 
 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1982 - 387-184 
 
— — "— — — ™ — 
 
59 83^| 
 

 
 
 

 hi 
 
 
 
 C°\' 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 %> <?••«>•••% ^•*S&-\, *••;*>•;•/*♦ * v *i&\ /«;-/^ «A*jS 
 
 L ♦ 
 
 
 :• ^ o ^» -i 
 
 
 ^ .« • 
 
 
 f> *i*"* V" 
 
 • <V 
 
 >"..^Lr 
 
 "9* '*-T« ;# A o° 
 
 v° .^°^ V 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^.. 
 
 . • ■ • 
 
 : **•+& 
 
 ': *°-V V 
 
 **.,.• 4, T 
 
 3 •»••» 
 
 V 4.^ 
 
 >,. •••*■ *V 
 
 
 
 ^°* -i 
 
 ■ J T^fc, DEC 82 
 
 N. MA 
 INDIA 
 
 
 

 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 002 959 834 4