Search Documents

Member ship L P MATHEWSON, Chairman GEORGE D BARRON LOUIS D HUNTOON JOHN A CHURCH, JR H N SPICER Alternates LEWIS W FRANCIS WILBER JUDSON F T RUBIDGE Increase of Membership JOHN A CHURCH, JR, Chairman Other members to be appointed

Jan 1, 1923

Jan 1, 1949

C. M. Kay, Chairman L. W. Moore, Post Chairman C. W. Conn, Vice-Chairman R. W. Shearman, Secretary-Treasurer BLAST FURNACE, COKE OVEN, AND RAW MATERIALS COMMITTEE F. C. Anderko, Chairman James Chisholm, Past Chairman W. F. Huntley, Senior Vice-Chairman W. O. Bishop, Vice-Chairman R. W. Shearman, Treasurer D. C. Brown, Secretary IRON AND STEEL DIVISION Gerhard Derge, Chairman J. J. Golden, Past Chairman B. M. Larsen, Chairman-Elect R. W. Shearman, Secretary-Treasurer THE METALLURGICAL SOCIEN OF AIME J. S. Smart, Jr., President C. C. Long, Past President K. L. Fetters, Vice-President T. D. Jones, Treasurer R. W. Shearman, Secretary

Jan 1, 1961

Executive A. R. LEDOUX, Chairman GEORGE D. BARRON SIDNEY J. JENNINGS J. V. N. DORR J. E. JOHNSON, JR.¬ Membership J. E. JOHNSON, JR., Chairman KARL EILERS F. F. SHARPLESS R. M. RAYMOND LEWIS W. FRANCIS Finance J. V. N. DORR, Chairman CHARLES F. RAND J. V. W. REYNDERS Library E. GYBBON SPILSBURY,' Chairman ALEXANDER C. HUMPHREYS GEORGE C. STONE' JOHN H. JANEWAY BRADLEY STOUGHTON Papers and Publications BRADLEY STOUGHTON, Chairman

Jan 1, 1923

Jan 1, 1940

Jan 1, 1946

Jan 1, 1940

Jan 1, 1947

Jan 1, 1947

Jan 1, 1940

Jan 1, 1940

Jan 1, 1943

Jan 1, 1943

Jan 1, 1944

The traditional form of project financing for resource related projects has involved project financings structured with either recourse to the project sponsor(s) or commercial banks accepting the project's risks, usually after project completion, subject to, inter alia, the nature of the project, geographical location, quality of the projected cash flows and commodity price outlook. However, the concept of commodity-linked borrowings hasadded a new dimension for borrowing opportunities for resource-oriented projects and or companies.

Jan 1, 1985

By James M. Barker

No commodity agreements now exist for sulfur and a lack of reference to sulfur commodity agreements exists in the literature. Law (1975) made a passing reference to sulfur as one of a group of commodities where "there have been additional control efforts of various types." Clearly, sulfur was a candidate, at least conceptually in the past, for some form of commodity agreement and the following discussion centers on the world sulfur market of the early 1980's in this context. GENERAL THEORY OF COMMODITY AGREEMENTS The upsurge in demands for commodity agreements seen in the last decade or so stems largely from agitation by the less developed countries (LDC) for better economic treatment by more developed countries (MDC). Several economic factors, real or imagined, adversely affect the LDC's as follows (MacAvoy, 1977): 1) variable demand in MDC's causes wide fluctuations in commodity prices which hurt the economies of commodity producers, who are often LDC's although consumer economies may also benefit from more predictable prices; 2) a general decline of commodity prices relative to the price of manufactured goods which hurts commodity producers in their balance of trade while their stocks and overcapacity rise; 3) instability of LDC economies enhanced by the above factors lowers internal stability, inhibits foreign investment, and retards economic growth; and 4) a lack of self respect when dealing with developed countries o, following the OPEC lead, LDC producers want the stature related to cartel market power.

Jan 1, 1985

By D. G. Keefe, I. C. Robinson

In this paper the authors present their views on the actual and potential role of commodity analysis in mining industry. Owing to the dominant influence of the economy on all commodity markets, it is essential that individual commodities are studied not only in depth but within the broader context of economic influences. A commodity unit, which monitors market developments in a wide range of commodities, is well placed to provide the broader perspective in the study of commodity markets. This paper describes some of the specific functions of such a unit. Some of the methods used for price forecasting are described, and the results of price forecasts by different forecasting methods are compared.

Jan 1, 1980

By F. H. Buttner

Commodity currency intrigues most of us because of the problems it offers to solve for the Third and the First Worlds. What problems might be solved, if commodity currency were to be adopted in the Third World? That is really the question we are probing here right now. It would take a while to think through all their subtle consequences of this question, but, off the top, it might well have at least three important impacts. Most important of these to this audience is relief from unfair Third World competition. Second, it might well liberate Third World economies from financial indebtedness to the First World and give them freedom from the liquidity limitations. The third benefit is that it might help relieve World trade tensions. All three benefits are interrelated. We could start our speculations on the application of commodity currency from anyone of these starting points. But let us use the starting point most important to you, unfair competition to the U.S. mining industry. From there we might wind up with some thoughts on things you, yourselves, can do to improve things.

Jan 1, 1978

1. Domestic Production and Use: Twelve companies operated 31 primary aluminum reduction plants, three firms accounting for 66% of production. Washington, Oregon, and Montana accounted for 32% of the total production; Gulf Coast States, 25%; Northern States, 29%; and other Southern States, 14%. Output of primary metal in 1973 was valued at $2.2 billion. About 80% of the secondary recovery was from new aluminum base scrap and 20% was from old scrap. Aluminum consumption by 25,000 firms was centered in the East Central United States. Of aluminum consuming industries in 1972, building accounted for 28%; transportation 19%; electrical, 13%; packaging, 16%; and consumer durab1es, 10%.

Jan 1, 1974

1. Domestic Production and Use: In 1974 twelve companies operated 31 primary aluminum reduction plants, three firms accounting for 64% of production. Washington, Oregon, and Montana accounted for 32% of the total production; Gulf Coast States, 24%; Northern States, 33%, and other Southern States 11%. Output of primary metal in 1974 was valued at $3.4 billion. About 80% of the secondary recovery was from new aluminum base scrap and 20% was from old scrap. Aluminum consumption by 25,000 firms was centered in the East Central United States. Of aluminum consuming industries in 1974, building accounted for about 27%; transportation 19%; electrical, 13%; packaging, 15%; and consumer durab1es, 9%.

Jan 1, 1975