Global production of molybdenum increased to 142.1 million pounds in the second quarter of 2015, up 10% from 128.8 million pounds in the previous quarter, but still 2% lower compared with the second quarter in 2014, according to figures released today by the International Molybdenum Association (IMOA).
Global use of molybdenum fell slightly to 126.3 million pounds, down 1% from 127.3 million pounds in the previous quarter and 12% lower compared with the second quarter in 2014.
China remained the biggest producer, with production increasing from 46.3 million pounds in the first quarter of 2015 to 52.3 million pounds in the second quarter, an increase of 13% and some 5% higher compared with the same quarter in 2014.
Production in North America rose from 37.8 million pounds in the first quarter of 2015 to 38.1 million pounds in the second quarter, an increase of 1%, but some 25% less compared with the same period in 2014. Production in South America increased from 34.2 million pounds in the first quarter of 2015 to 41.3 million pounds in the second quarter. Production in other countries was static at 10.5 million pounds.
Biggest user
China remained the biggest user, with 43.4 million pounds in the second quarter of 2015, up from 42.4 million pounds in the first quarter but down 15% compared with the second quarter last year. Europe was the second largest user with 34.1 million pounds, down slightly from 34.4 million pounds in the previous quarter, and down 10% compared with the second quarter last year.
Usage in the USA decreased from 14.1 to 13.4 million pounds, down 5% compared with the previous quarter and down 8% compared with the second quarter in 2014. Usage in Japan was 12.5 million pounds, down 6% from 13.3 million pounds in the first quarter and down 19% compared with the second quarter last year. Usage in the CIS countries decreased slightly by 3% to 5.5 million pounds, while usage in other countries remained static at 17.4 million pounds.
This story is reprinted from material from the IMOA, with editorial changes made by Materials Today. The views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent those of Elsevier.
