Textbook Ebook Rare Earths Industry Technological Economic and Environmental Implications 1St Edition Leal Filho Walter All Chapter PDF

Rare earths industry : technological,
economic, and environmental

implications 1st Edition Leal Filho
Walter
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/rare-earths-industry-technological-economic-and-envi
ronmental-implications-1st-edition-leal-filho-walter/
Rare Earths Industry
Technological, Economic, and
Environmental Implications
Edited by
Ismar Borges De Lima

Universidade Estadual de Roraima, UERR, Brazil, & Southern
Cross University, SCU, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia
Walter Leal Filho

Hamburg University of Applied Sciences, Research and Transfer
Centre “Applications of Life Sciences”, Hamburg, Germany
AMSTERDAM • BOSTON • HEIDELBERG • LONDON • NEW YORK • OXFORD

PARIS • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO • SINGAPORE • SYDNEY • TOKYO
Elsevier
Radarweg 29, PO Box 211, 1000 AE Amsterdam, Netherlands
The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, UK
225 Wyman Street, Waltham, MA 02451, USA
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or
mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without
permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the
Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance
Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions.
This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher
(other than as may be noted herein).
Notices
Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden our
understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may become
necessary.
Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and
using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information
or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom
they have a professional responsibility.
To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any
liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence
or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the
material herein.
ISBN: 978-0-12-802328-0
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress
For information on all Elsevier publications

visit our website at http://store.elsevier.com/
List of Contributors
Aida Abbasalizadeh
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft,
The Netherlands
Vassiliki Aggelatou
Institute of Geology and Mineral Exploration, Athens, Greece
Zacharias Agioutantis
Department of Mining Engineering, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA
Uwe Altenberger
University of Potsdam, Potsdam-Golm, Telegrafenberg, Germany
Helmut Antrekowitsch
Chair of Nonferrous Metallurgy, Montanuniversitaet Leoben, Leoben, Austria
Efthymios Balomenos
National Technical University of Athens School of Mining and Metallurgical Engineering,
Zografos Campus – Athens, Greece
George Barakos
HZDR – Helmholtz Institute Freiberg for Resource Technologies, Freiberg, Germany
Gregory B. Barnes
G.B. Barnes & Associates, South Perth, WA, Australia
Eva Barteková
United Nations University-MERIT and Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
Nina K. Boesche
Helmholtz Centre Potsdam–GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, Potsdam,
Telegrafenberg, Germany; University of Potsdam, Potsdam-Golm, Telegrafenberg, Germany
Ismar Borges de Lima
Universidade Estadual de Roraima, UERR, Brazil, & Southern Cross University, SCU, Gold
Coast, QLD, Australia
E. Bourbos
School of Mining and Metallurgical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens,
Athens, Greece
Maximilian Brell
Telegrafenberg, Germany
Panagiotis Davris
National Technical University of Athens School of Mining and Metallurgical Engineering,
Zografos Campus – Athens, Greece
Els De Canck
Department of Inorganic and Physical Chemistry, Center for Ordered Materials, Organometallics
and Catalysis (COMOC), Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
xix
xx LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
Jeriffa De Clercq
Department of Industrial Technology and Construction, Industrial Catalysis and Adsorption
Technology (INCAT), Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
Jeroen De Decker
Bayarmagnai Enkhzul
Central Geological Laboratory, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia
Andrea Ferrari
D’Appolonia S.p.A., Genoa, Italy
I. Giannopoulou
Athens, Greece
Bertil Grundfelt
Kemakta Konsult AB, Stockholm, Sweden
X. Guo
The Netherlands
Jens Gutzmer
Institute of Mineralogy, TU Bergakademie Freiberg, Freiberg, Germany
Sabrina Herrmann
Telegrafenberg, Germany; University of Potsdam, Potsdam-Golm, Telegrafenberg,
Germany
Lars Olof Höglund
Sotiris N. Kamenopoulos
School of Mineral Resources Engineering, Technical University of Crete, Chania, Greece
A. Karantonis
School of Chemical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Athens, Greece
S. Kaya
Department of Metallurgical and Materials Engineering, Middle East Technical University
(METU), Ankara, Turkey
Miranda Keith-Roach
James C. Kennedy
ThREE Consulting, St. Louis, MO, USA
Kostas Komnitsas
School of Mineral Resources Engineering, Technical University of Crete, Chania, Greece
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS xxi
Friederike Körting
Anne Kousa
Geological Survey of Finland, Kuopio, Finland
Jukka Laukkanen
Geological Survey of Finland, GTK Mineral processing, Outokumpu, Finland
Walter Leal Filho
Hamburg University of Applied Sciences, Research and Transfer Centre “Applications of Life
Sciences”, Hamburg, Germany
Ling Zhi Li
China Western Mining Co., Ltd, Xining, Qinghai, P.R. China
Batzorig Lkhagvasuren
Central Geological Laboratory, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia
Christin Lubitz
Stefan Luidold
Paloma Magistrati
Fen Minerals A/S, Norway
Nabeel A. Mancheri
Institute of Social Science, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
Delgermaa Margai
Mongol Gazar LLC, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia
Christian Mielke
Helmut Mischo
Institute for Mining and Special Civil Engineering, TU Bergakademie Freiberg, Freiberg,
Germany
Nicolò Olivieri
D’Appolonia S.p.A., Genoa, Italy
Dimitrios Panias
Athens, Greece
Anne Papenfuß
xxii LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
Ioannis Paspaliaris
Athens, Greece
Sebastiaan Peelman
The Netherlands
Esa Pohjolainen
Geological Survey of Finland, Espoo, Finland
Alexander Poscher
V. Prakash
The Netherlands
Christian Rogass
Roberto V. Santos
Serviço Geológico do Brasil – CPRM – SGAN 603 Conj. “J” Parte A – 1 andar –
CEP 70.830-100 – Brası́lia – DF, Brazil
Holger Schnideritsch
Hans K. Schønwandt
G.B. Barnes & Associates, South Perth, WA, Australia
Seshadri Seetharaman
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm,
Sweden
Deborah Shields
Department of Economics, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Jilt Sietsma
The Netherlands
Francisco V. Silveira
Serviço Geológico do Brasil – CPRM – SGAN 603 Conj. “J” Parte A – 1 andar –
CEP 70.830-100 – Brası́lia – DF, Brazil
Zhi H.I. Sun
The Netherlands
Lucy Takehara
Serviço Geológico do Brasil – CPRM – Rua Banco da Provı́ncia, Porto Alegre - RS, Brazil
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS xxiii
Lidong Teng
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm,
Sweden
Sabine Tonn
Y.A. Topkaya
Department of Metallurgical and Materials Engineering, Middle East Technical University
(METU), Ankara, Turkey
Akseli Torppa
Geological Survey of Finland, Kuopio, Finland
Thomas Ulrich
Department of Geoscience, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
Pascal Van Der Voort
Xiaosheng Yang
Geological Survey of Finland, GTK Mineral Processing, Outokumpu, Finland
Yongxiang Yang
The Netherlands
Volker Zepf
Scientist at the Chair of Resource Strategy, University of Augsburg, Germany
Preface
Rare earths are elements that comprise critical components of many of our modern technological
devices and everyday electronics. Their demand worldwide is projected to increase, given their
many applications. The European Union (EU) imports more than 90% of its rare earth metal
(REMs) needs from countries such as China because there is not enough internal supply. Experts
predict that the demand for these metals will grow as consumer preferences shift toward high-tech
and “green” products. To ensure supply security, the EU is trying to improve access to rare earths,
reduce their consumption, and enhance extraction conditions across the continent. Yet, despite the
relevance of and need for rare earths, their technological and economic elements and the environ-
mental implications of their exploration and trade are not fully understood. This innovative book
will provide such a contribution and will address this gap in the book market.
A main motivation for proposing a book on rare earths has been the global increasing demand for
critical, updated, and extensive analysis and information on the theme. The book has an interdisci-
plinary orientation with a focus on technical, scientific, academic, economic, and environmental
and market issues; thus, it widely covers multiple interests of the audience. The chapters provide
updated information and a priceless analysis of the theme. They present the latest techniques,
approaches, processes, and technologies that can reduce the costs of compliance with environmental
concerns in a way that makes it possible to anticipate and mitigate emerging problems. At the end of
each main part of the book, a critical summary outlines the technological, economic, and environ-
mental implications of the rare earth reserves, explorations, and market.
At the beginning, a chapter offers a concise but meaningful geopolitical analysis of the current
worldwide scenario and the importance of rare earth exploration for governments, corporate groups,
and local stakeholders. Rare earth elements (REEs) are composed of 15 chemical elements in the
periodic table. Scandium and yttrium have similar properties, with mineral assemblages, and are
therefore referred to alike in the literature. Although they are abundant on the planet surface, rare earths
are not found in concentrated form, which makes them economically valuable because of the challenges
and difficulties in obtaining them. Their importance in the industry lies in the fact that almost all newer
technologies require these rare minerals, such as solar and wind energy systems, smartphones, the aero-
space industry, high-efficiency lighting and electric motors, and hybrid and electric vehicles.
In view of the high demand for rare earths, their exploration should occur on a sustainable basis
using processes with “green” technologies; in this sense, recycling has a pivotal role and has its
own space and discussion in the book. The book provides a description of the many facets and
complexities related to rare earth exploration, development, and disposal, which have revealed them-
selves to be of utmost importance to the economies of developed and developing countries, among
which are China, the United States, Australia, India, Brazil, and Germany, to mention just a few.
Rare earths have suddenly become a national technological and economic priority because countries
have aimed to become even more competitive in the world market, and these minerals are unquestion-
ably essential.
As observed in the market fact sheets and institutional reports, worldwide demand is expected to
grow by 8–11% each year and mining and production may not happen at the same stride. The projected
global demand for REEs in 2016 is at least 160,000 tons annually, suggesting a Hobbes and Calvin
principle that theoretically explains the dynamics of a gulf between ‘supply’ and ‘demand’, in which
raw resource demands surpass supplies for specific minerals.
xxv
xxvi PREFACE
Simply put, in the near future the REE sector risks facing short-term shortages. The increase in
demand is intertwined with environmental implications of production and existing supply risks owing
to an intricate and complex market. These issues have strikingly led to the identification of REEs as
critical raw materials.
The recycling and reuse of REMs is a promising field because it also saves energy used in mining
and processing, conserves resources, and reduces pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Consistent
with this goal, it is important to undertake an analysis of socioenvironmental and socioeconomic
elements and to produce guidelines that should be considered in the sustainable recycling of REMs,
in line with the principles of sustainable development and corporate social responsibility.
In terms of socioeconomic sustainability, a possible course of action is to develop analytical guides
for the socioeconomic evaluation of the exploitation of REMs and their recycling. Such guides may
then be used as policy tools to allow informed decisions to ensure socioeconomic elements are consid-
ered in the exploitation and recycling of REMs, ensuring sustainability aspects are fully considered.
Companies in the information technology and energy sector (e.g., wind energy) urgently need to
address problems related to their short supply of REEs. One way to address the problem is to maximize
the use of already existing REEs (i.e., their recovery from existing electronic equipment); this leads a
discussion of the sustainability of the rare earths industry not only in mining but also in overall REE
production, consumption, and recycling. In this context, recycling methods may have an important role
and will be useful to companies. Yet, there is a paucity of research in this field.
The purpose of this book is to compile current information and report on research and projects that
may ultimately catalyze efforts to develop a strategy for managing REE resources as a whole and
reducing their potential environmental impacts in particular. It consists of a set of chapters in which
each element (technological, environmental, or market) is emphasized. To present the topics system-
atically, the book was divided into three main parts. Part I deals with rare earth reserves and mining;
Part II focuses on rare earth processes and high-tech product development and industry market issues;
and Part III deals with rare earth environmental issues: opportunities and challenges.
Each chapter presents highlights of the methods and findings of updated, unique, particular studies
provided by experts on rare earths, who are either researchers of acknowledged higher education
institutions or belong to renowned research institutes worldwide. The book gathers a collection of
high-quality scientific, academic, and technological work that is of utmost value to those interested
in or engaged with the rare earths sector. Chapter 1 offers an overview of the current situation and
trends of rare earths related to pertinent issues of the industry, either economic facts or innovative sci-
entific solutions and new approaches to a problem issue: for instance, an environmental one. Thus be-
gins a valuable outline for a startup reading into the theme. Chapter 2 provides a critical review on
Chinese rare earth export restrictions and implications with regard to its current monopoly over the
industry, and provides insights into the market in terms of volume, value, and availability. Chapter 3
examines how United States/International Atomic Energy Agency regulatory constraints have
been unfavorable for Western rare earth producers and have therefore contributed to some extent
to China’s rare earth production leadership. The chapter discusses the economic viability of rare
earths in the interfaces of geochemistry and value chain integration. Chapter 4 reports on the poten-
tiality of REEs in Brazil by comprehensively analyzing rare earth sites in Brazilian lands, including the
capacity of mines with estimated reserves. It discusses details about REEs in a country with
promising production in the following decades. The current state of active operational mines in
different regions of the country is fully discussed regarding geological and economic value aspects.
Chapter 5 describes the rare earth deposit Tanbreez in south Greenland and its potentiality and
concentrates in the soil with conservative estimates of more than four billion tons of specific REEs.
PREFACE xxvii
The chapter largely contributes to the literature by advancing high-intense magnetic separation, and
therefore can substantially minimize the impact of waste products. Chapter 6 contributes to the
rare earth theme by developing a mix of qualitative and quantitative sustainable development criteria
and indicators, which can in turn be used for assessing REE mining projects. The proposed criteria and
indicators can be used by overall stakeholders, as well as to assist decision and policy makers
regarding the bottom line concerning social, economic, environmental, geopolitical, and technological
aspects for REE development. Chapter 7 extends the analysis of sustainability in REE mining by elab-
orating a framework that includes fundamental elements contributing to a holistic sustainable platform
for REEs including tangible and intangible variables, limiting and controlling factors, and outputs for
improving a global scenario on REEs given the absence of an existing international interorganizational
regulatory agency for the sector. The framework can be widely applied to a set of situations helping to
balance governing positions and decisions about certain multidimensional problem issues in the rare
earth industry. Chapter 8 deals with an analysis of rare earth underground mining and radioactivity in
terms of control and monitoring strategies. It attempts to determine radon dispersion sources and the
risks related to radiation exposure. It focuses on key issues of rare earth exploration and processes,
such as occupational exposition, tailings, mine water, dust suppression, and ventilation. The chapter
discusses environmental and health issues of rare earth production. Chapter 9 examines China’s
rare earth resources, production, mines, and ore mineralogy, as well as beneficiation techniques
including flow sheets, flotation, and leaching reagents. The chapter discusses ion adsorption and fo-
cuses on the largest active reserves of the world in China, among which is the Bayan Obo
REE-Nb-Fe ore in Inner Mongolia. Chapter 10 deals with the role of rare earth supply risks in
low-carbon technologies innovation. It analyzes offshore wind turbines and electrically powered vehi-
cles to determine actual quantities of rare earths used within their generators, electric motors, and bat-
teries. The chapter contests prevalent views and allegations that a paucity of potential supply would
disrupt the further development of the automotive industry, for instance. Chapter 11 studies the effects
of high-pressure acid leaching behavior of scandium together with nickel and cobalt from a refractory
nickel laterite ore. It seeks to determine the process parameters and optimum process conditions over
finer particle sizes and longer leaching duration. Chapter 12 investigates leaching REEs from bauxite
residue using Bronsted acidic ionic liquids. It applies innovative solvents called ionic liquids in rare
earth exploitation by leaving lower-value metals such as iron undissolved. Chapter 13 briefly reviews
the recent literature on ionic liquids in REM electrodeposition and systematically presents the main
electrochemical properties of ionic liquids and applications. As an outcome, the chapter presents
the results of a preliminary investigation for the suitability of a pyrrolidinium-based ionic liquid for
the electrodeposition of lanthanum, thus adding significantly to the literature on REEs. Chapter 14
describes different options of processing for polishing glass substrates or wafers and the use of
fine-grained particles based on the oxides of the lanthanides cerium and lanthanum. It examines
different hydrometallurgical methods including mineral acids for extraction. It also investigates pre-
cipitation methods, by carbonate or oxalate carriers, as the means to produce a rare earth concentrate
required for reuse in fabricating new polishing powders. Chapter 15 offers a critical evaluation of the
solubility of rare earth oxides (REOs) in molten fluorides. It presents a comprehensive analysis of
available data from previous publications with a focus on the limited solubility of REOs as an obstacle
to preparing REMs. Chapter 16 provides a hyperspectral REE mapping of three outcrops at the Fen
Complex, Norway: calcitic, dolomitic, and ankeritic carbonatites. The new approach allows a charac-
terization of the outcrop mineralogy in a rapid and robust manner because of new spatiotemporal
hyperspectral methods. Chapter 17 provides a general description of some environmental impacts
of the exploitation of REMs and outlines areas where attention is needed, such as ecosystem alteration
xxviii PREFACE
and environmental risks of ground and surface water contamination, for example. A particular review
is done of waste, radioactive waste, the generation of tailingda hazardous waste materialdand its
particulates, and fugitive dust from tailings impoundment transported by wind that may accumulate
in downwind areas. The chapter discusses the topic by outlining treatment and disposal solutions.
Chapter 18 appraises environmental legislation and best practice in the emerging European REE
industry with regard to quantities of waste and to nontarget toxic metals, fluorine, and radionuclides.
Past REE mining and processing resulted in significant environmental impacts in several countries, and
the chapter assesses the EU’s existing environmental legislation, comparing it with regulations with
other REE-producing countries. Chapter 19 reviews the main recycling aspects of REE elements
by offering an overview of ongoing possibilities and advances worldwide. Current REE recycling pro-
jects and prospective fields are identified in the literature and news reports. Recycling is taken as one
solution to the likely scarcity of rare earth supplies, besides being ecologically desirable to alleviate the
pressure to open new mines or increase current production. Notwithstanding, economic and cost as-
pects and feasibilities are examined in the review. Chapter 20 investigates the systemic need for
and approaches to neodymium use and recycling potential. Consequently, the study aims to determine
and evaluate the quantitative recycling potential with a focus on neodymium used in NdFeB magnets
in wind turbines, electric cars, and computer hard drives at a local level in the domains of time and
space. Chapter 21 examines the leaching of REEs by reviewing past and present technologies in pri-
mary REE production and in current REE recycling as critical to hydrometallurgical REE processing.
The chapter provides a comprehensive understanding of these processes as fundamental to REE recy-
cling from secondary resources. Chapter 22 provides a theoretical analysis of simultaneous electro-
chemical recovery of REEs and iron from magnet scrap. It reviews the role of the microstructure of the
alloy and different elements in the dissolution mechanism of the REE magnet. The focus is on under-
standing the electrochemical behavior of different components in the NdFeB magnet alloy as well as a
selective extract of REEs into aqueous solutions. Chapter 23 contributes to the literature with scien-
tific advances by providing metal-organic frameworks in the field of liquid adsorption for recovering
rare earths. Selectivity tests demonstrated very high selectivity for europium over the transition metal
zinc and good selectivity between the rare earths europium and yttrium. Chapter 24 examines rare
earth extraction from NdFeB magnets and REOs using aluminum chloride–fluoride molten salt pro-
cesses. The chapter points out that the method is well suited for recovering REMs from magnetic scrap
containing these metals. The major field knowledge advances lie in the molten salt and electrodepo-
sition with regard to the recovery of neodymium and dysprosium from used magnets. Chapter 25
deals with the mineralogy and beneficiation of REE in the Mushgia Khudag ore, South Gobi, in
Mongolia, as investigated during a joint research and development project of GTK Finland and
CGL in Mongolia in 2012–2014. Samples were examined by MLA, XRD, EMPA, XRF, and ICP–MS.
In addition to apatite veins, the deposit also contains carbonatite; both rock types are associated with
Mesozoic, c. 140 Ma, syenite magmatism. This chapter contributes to knowledge of processing an
extremely REE-enriched igneous-hydrothermal ore type. Chapter 26 summarizes the major key find-
ings, outcomes, innovative approaches, and pertinent methods presented in the chapters as the means
to promote theoretical-conceptual advances in the literature and the applicability of innovative pro-
cesses with regard to rare earths. The chapter is a synthesis of the previous chapters with a compilation
of the key contributions of the authors in academic, scientific, and technological terms.
We hope this book will serve as a reference source for those working with REMs or for those who
are interested in their various applications.
Enjoy your reading!
The Editors.
CHAPTER
AN OVERVIEW OF THE
USEFULNESS AND STRATEGIC
VALUE OF RARE EARTH METALS
1
Volker Zepf
Scientist at the Chair of Resource Strategy, University of Augsburg, Germany
1. CRITICAL RARE EARTHS

The rare earth elements (REEs), also called rare earth metals or just rare earths (REs), have been the
most prominent and discussed raw materials since about 2009. In that year, China announced a
reduction in REE export quotas of nearly 50% to 30,000 tons (t)1 rare earth oxides (REOs) (the usual
measure for traded RE materials) (Zepf, 2013). Thus, a supply risk was feared because China has a de
facto production monopoly. At the same time, the economic importance of the REEs emerged because
of important functions in environmentally friendly products such as energy-saving lamps, electric cars,
and (some types of) wind turbine generators (WTGs). Consequently, REEs have repeatedly been
identified as some of today’s most critical elements.
The supply risk issue gained further weight when some obvious environmental problems in REE
mining were reported (Bradsher, 2009). To overcome these risky situations, new REE mines outside
China were planned and set up. Research for better materials efficiency and substitutions was pushed.
Eventually, the former mine at Mountain Pass, California, and the Mount Weld mine in southwestern
Australia went into commission around 2012. There, new mining, separation, and refining technology
was installed to allow environmentally sound production. Yet today, both companies struggle with low
prices for REEs, which cause huge financial deficits so that even bankruptcy is imminent. Despite
these problems, the companies try to keep operations running. Nevertheless, REEs have inherent
special chemical and physical characteristics that allow extraordinary functionalities, and thus REEs
are ideal ingredients for a huge variety of applications.
This introductory chapter will explain these issues briefly to show the whole complexity of the
production and use of the REEs. The introduction gives an overview without too much detail, because
the following chapters will provide these analyses.
1.1 WHAT REEs ARE

The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry classifies REEs as a group of 17 elements in
the third group of the periodic table of elements (Connelly, 2005). The REEs thus include scandium
1
Note: Commas have been used as 1000 dividers; points indicate decimals.
Rare Earths Industry. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-802328-0.00001-2
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
3
4 CHAPTER 1 AN OVERVIEW OF THE USEFULNESS AND STRATEGIC VALUE
(Sc, atomic number 21), yttrium (Y, 39), and the lanthanides, which are lanthanum (La, 57), cerium
(Ce, 58), praseodymium (Pr, 59), neodymium (Nd, 60), promethium (Pm, 61), samarium (Sm, 62),
europium (Eu, 63), gadolinium (Gd, 64), terbium (Tb, 65), dysprosium (Dy, 66), holmium (Ho, 67),
erbium (Er, 68), thulium (Tm, 69), ytterbium (Yb, 70), and lutetium (Lu, 71). Promethium is not
usually included in the discussion because it is the only radioactive REE and principally it does not
occur in nature. Next to the umbrella term “REE,” the elements are further grouped into light REEs
(LREEs) and heavy REEs (HREEs), and some authors such as Kingsnorth (2010) add a medium class
of REEs (MREEs). The attributions to these groups are not distinct: the United States (US) Geological
Survey (USGS) calls La to Gd the LREEs and Tb to Lu and Y the HREEs (USGS, 2014). Kingsnorth,
however, uses La to Nd as LREEs, Pm to Gd as MREEs, and Tb to Lu plus Y as HREEs (Kingsnorth,
2010). Introduction of the three groups may become common because the new Chinese tax rates
differentiate among LRE, MRE, and HRE, i.e., light, medium, and high rare earth–rich concentrates
(Argus, 2015).
The term “rare earth” traces back to the time of discovery of the elements, at around 1800. The
origin and reason for calling the materials “rare” are not explicit, but the etymological explanation
given by Reiners (2001) is helpful. She argues that the adjective “rare” was used from the fifteenth
century onward for something strange, extraordinary, and astonishing (Reiners, 2001). Thus, “rare”
does not refer to a rare occurrence but to a strange habitus of the materials. Today, the low concen-
trations of REEs in ore bodies may be considered as being rare. “Earth,” however, is clearly a common
word for oxidic materials in the nineteenth century.
1.2 CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL PROPERTIES

Much information about special chemical and physical properties is provided in standard scientific
encyclopedias and schoolbooks. Therefore, here only a few specialties will be discussed because
they explain both challenges during separation and refining and potential application areas for
REEs. In general, with increasing atomic numbers, atoms attach one more electron, which adds to
the outer electron orbital and the atom radii become larger. For the lanthanides not only the outer
shell but also the lower-lying 4f-orbital is being filled with electrons. This results in a similar outer
(electron) appearance of all lanthanides but also stronger forces inside the atoms. As a consequence,
the atomic radii are decreasing with increasing atomic number, a phenomenon known as lanthanide
contraction. Some REE atoms have atomic radii similar to rock-forming elements, which explains
why REEs are often found in rocks that contain calcium, thorium, uranium, and strontium (for more
information see Zepf, 2013). However, the physical properties have no such similarities but rather
differences. Some REEs have ideal magnetic behavior, such as Gd, Dy, Nd, and Sm, whereas others
such as Er and Tb inherit sharply defined energy states that can be used efficiently in lighting and
laser applications.
2. THE CRITICALITY ISSUE

The criticality of the REEs has been determined in numerous studies. One of the first articles
addressing REEs as “critical resources for high technology” was the USGS in a Fact Sheet published in
2002 (USGS, 2002). A further remarkable study, Minerals, Critical Minerals, and the US Economy,
published in 2008 by the National Research Council (NRC), developed the well-known criticality
3. OCCURRENCES, MINING, AND PRODUCTION 5
matrix introducing as main indicators “supply risk” and the “impact to supply restriction”; the
latter indicator is about equivalent to the term economic importance. The group of the REEs was
identified as highly critical in supply risk and nearly high concerning the impact of supply re-
striction (NRC, 2008).
In 2009, Angerer et al. conducted a profound study on raw materials for emerging technologies in
which neodymium was ranked the second most critical element (Angerer et al., 2009). In 2010, the
European Commission issued the Critical Raw Materials for the EU, a report of the ad hoc working
group that pinpointed the group of the REEs as critical with the highest supply risk and medium
economic importance (European Commission, 2010).
A sequel to the NRC work was the Critical Materials Strategy published in 2010 by the US
Department of Energy in which in the matrix as developed by the NRC individual REEs were iden-
tified as being the most critical elements under investigation (US DOE, 2010). The update 1 year later
confirmed the status (US DOE, 2011). Consultants and press media joined the publication circle, e.g.,
Reuters’ analysis of the “Fight for Rare Earths” (Reuters, 2010). Hurst (2010) reported on the Chinese
REE industry and explained lessons to be learned.
In 2011, Ernst and Young (2011) reported on REEs as technology minerals for which deficits in
supply were identified. The focus was more on mining ventures rather than on general criticality. In the
same year, the European Joint Research Center dealt with “Critical Metals in Strategic Energy
Technologies” and attributed to dysprosium and neodymium an overall high risk based on market and
political factors (JRC, 2011). In 2014, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
produced a special report on REs that discussed global high dependency on Chinese REE production
and the importance of REEs for defense applications (UNCTAD, 2014). Since about 2010, many more
such studies and sequels with more or less the same assessment showed up, so that from this
perspective the extraordinary importance and criticality of REEs were underlined.
3. OCCURRENCES, MINING, AND PRODUCTION

3.1 ABUNDANCE AND GEOLOGY
The attribute of rarity in the name of “REEs” requires a closer look. There are 12 elements in the
earth’s crust, which together comprise more than 99% of the mass (O, Si, Al, Fe, Ca, Mg, Na, K, Ti, H,
Mn, and P) (Skinner, 1976). All other elements share the remaining 1%. Among them are the REEs.
Within this group of relatively rare elements, the REEs range in the lower half, whereas several
elements seem fairly abundant. According to the research of Rudnick and Gao (2003), yttrium in the
upper continental crust is about as abundant as lithium; cerium is about as abundant as zinc; neo-
dymium and lanthanum are about as abundant as copper, and even dysprosium is about twice as
abundant as gold or eight times as abundant as platinum. However, these citations of abundance give
only average concentrations and mass values. The numbers do not reflect typical concentrations of
elements in rocks that develop during petrogenesis. Gold and copper, for example, occur in native
states; i.e., these elements aggregate (sometimes) to nugget types, whereas REEs never occur in such
native states. An interesting insight gives the annual mining production quantities of yttrium at an
estimated 7000 t and lithium at 36,000 t; copper 18.7 million t; lanthanum2 about 25,300 t and
2
Assuming an average ore concentration of 23% La and 18% Nd; calculated with an annual production of 110,000 t.
neodymium1 19,800 t; and cerium1 55,000 t and zinc 13.3 million t (USGS, 2015b). Thus, the message
of the table describing abundance is of no real help when talking about actual extraction potential.
The major ores from which REEs are being produced are bastnaesite, monazite, xenotime, and ion-
adsorption clays. Bastnaesite is a fluorocarbonate mineral with the basic formula3 [(Ln) (CO3) F]
composed of various additions of LREE and a few HREEs (Zepf, 2013). This ore is the primary
feedstock of the Chinese Bayan Obo and the California Mountain Pass Mine. Monazite, a phosphate
mineral with the typical formula [(Ce, La, Y, Th)PO4], can contain additions of other LREEs and a few
HREEs. A major problem when processing monazites is radioactive residues, which have to be treated
accordingly. Monazite is the main ore of the Australian Mount Weld mine. Xenotimes and ion-adsorption
clays contain relatively high percentages of HREE, but these minerals themselves are rare or have an
overall low REE concentration. Main extraction areas of these minerals are in southeastern Chinese
provinces.
3.2 MINING AND PRODUCTION

3.2.1 Historical Development
The first commercial use of REEs was probably the invention of Auer-Light and Auermetal used for
lighter flints; both products were discovered and merchandized by Austrian chemist Carl Auer von
Welsbach around the year 1900 (Zepf, 2013). The raw materials were heavy sand that served as ballast
in ships. Over the course of the world wars heavy sand mining was pushed in a search for radioactive
materials for nuclear research mainly in the US. This first phase of REE mining is called the Monazite
Placer era (USGS, 2002).
With the invention of color television, the need for europium increased rapidly, and the discovery of
the REE deposit at Mountain Pass in California in the mid-1960s can be considered the breakthrough of
REE mining; this second phase is called the Mountain Pass era, which ended in the mid-1980s. In the
1950s, the iron ore deposit in Bayan Obo was discovered, which soon showed considerable REE content.
Major production of these REEs began in the mid-1980s and became the primary producer of REOs
in the world. With closure of the mine at Mountain Pass around the year 2000, monopoly over production
ultimately went to China. This third phase is called the Chinese era (USGS, 2002).
3.2.2 Global Production and Reserves

Figure 1 shows the development of global REE production from the 1950s to 2014. In the 1950s the
global production of REOs reached about 1000 t and it doubled in 1960. In 1970 production grew to
16,000 t; in 1980 to 27,000 t; in 1990 to 53,000 t; and in 2000 to 90,000 t, reaching two peaks in 2006
and 2009 at 137,000 and 135,000 t, respectively. Since 2009, global production declined for three
years to 110,000 t in 2014 (USGS, 2015a). In addition to these numbers, considerable illegal mining is
probably present.
Annual illegal production is estimated to be 40,000 t (Xinhua, 2014). At the final conference of the
European Rare Earths Competency Network, Kingsnorth stated that China admitted a 40% share of
illegal magnetic RE supply (Moores, 2014). Both numbers referring to illegal production are
emphasized only to be estimates. It is also uncertain what these numbers actually tell: Does 40,000 t
refer to REOs and does it have to be added to official production values? What elements belong to the
3
Ln stands for lanthanides.
FIGURE 1
Rare earth element production, 1950–2014. Notes: The production data refer to the lanthanides,
i.e., excluding yttrium and scandium production. Data given in metric tons (1 t = 1000 kg).
Sources: USGS Minerals Yearbooks 1994–2012; USGS Mineral Commodity Summarises 2015.
magnetic RE supply? It is likely that considerable illegal mining and trade are present, but actual data
remain obscure.
Annual global production numbers are known; quantitative shares of the individual REEs are not
available, however. The numbers can and have to be interpolated from known concentrations of single
elements in the mined ores. Of the REEs contained in the bastnaesite of the Bayan Obo ore body, 50%
is cerium (CeO2), lanthanum comprises about 25% (La2O3), and the neodymium content is about 17%
(Nd2O3) (Zhi Li and Yang, 2014). Using a simplified assumption that the entire global production is
derived from such ores, the individual share can be deduced with reasonable reliability for LREEs: In
2014, with an annual production of 110,000 t REOs, cerium contained is 55,000 t, lanthanum is
27,500 t, and neodymium 18,700 t.
Various separation and refining techniques are explained, e.g., by Gupta and Krishnamurthy
(2005), so just one major aspect needs recognition: that during separation and refining in a first step,
cerium and lanthanum always have to be separated before other REEs can be extracted. This means
that the separation of the cheapest REEs, cerium and lanthanum, requires a lot of beneficiation cost.
The supply of these two elements is likely higher than demand. For lanthanum, the systemic substitute
of lithium ion battery technology also reduces demand.
3.2.3 Reserves
Global REE reserves in 2014 are given as 130 million t REO. Until 2008, global reserves were
88 million t (USGS, 2009), so that today’s reserves are the result of recent exploration successes. From
these reserves, 55 million t belong to China (42%), 22 million t are Brazilian (17%), and Australia and
the US together own 5 million t, which is less than 5% of global reserves (USGS, 2015b). It is possible
that some of the current exploration projects will detect even more deposits so that reserve figures
could increase even more. Based on current annual production of 110,000 t REO and some
130 million t of reserves, a reserves-over-production (R/P) value of nearly 1200 years results, a range
that is one of the longest of all elements known. This fact should have a comforting effect, but REEs
are still considered critical elements, because the topic of reserves is no criterion for determining
criticality. Also, R/P values are only of theoretical quality because somebody has to start a mining
project, which requires large investments for several years before some cash back can be expected.
Obviously only long-term considerations based on positive future earnings, i.e., high prices for raw
materials, may push such projects. However, recent mining projects showed that predictions have been
too optimistic.
3.2.4 Major Mines

Today, the major active REE mines are located in China, the US, and Australia, with several global
projects having reached mature states of development. In China, the world’s largest REE mine is
located in Bayan Obo, Inner Mongolia, with separation and refining facilities some 150 km south in
Baotou. Further mining areas are in Sichuan and in the southeastern provinces, where mainly HREEs
are being produced. In the US, the former Mountain Pass mine was reopened in 2012 and was planned
to produce about 20,000 t REOs per year with the option to ramp up production to 40,000 t REOs. In
the 2014 annual report, however, the company reported production of about 5000 t REO, but also
considerable risks and problems, so that prolonged operation is not guaranteed. Current production
will increase only when market conditions improve (Molycorp, 2015c).
The Australian Lynas Corp. opened the Mount Weld mine in southwestern Australia, where REEs
are mined from phosphate ores and the company produced nearly 4000 t REO in 2014 (Lynas, 2015).
Plans dated 2010 talked about the production of 22,000 t REOs in 2014 (Lynas, 2010), which shows
the error of this prediction. Numerous other exploration projects were or are ongoing and a few have
reached mature planning stages. Elsner (2011) reported 381 known RE projects worldwide (Elsner,
2011) at different progress stages, and Technology Metals Research (TMR) provided an updated list of
advanced RE projects, the TMR Advanced Rare-Earth Projects Index, which currently contains 53 in
an advanced state. Among them are projects with huge ore bodies, e.g., in Greenland, Canada, the US,
Kenya, Australia, Brazil, South Africa, and Russia (Hatch, 2015).
Predictions for future REE mining were and are controversial. Basically, all future demand pre-
dictions, as presented by mining companies, were too optimistic. In 2010, Lynas Corporation esti-
mated global demand to reach 182,000 t in 2014 (Lynas, 2010). Consultants estimated demand for
2015 to reach 185,000 t given a data uncertainty of 15% (Chegwidden and Kingsnorth, 2010).
Factually, production in 2014 was 110,000 t REO (USGS, 2015b); the first prediction was off by about
50%; how accurate the second estimate was has yet to be seen. It is, of course, extremely difficult to
predict market development, especially in the case of REEs, when supply risks lead to increased
research for material efficiency and substitutes and thus change demand.
3.2.5 Ecology
In 2009, journalists reported on damaging effects to humans and the environment from REE mining
and separation. Hilsum reported from Baotou, where tailing ponds were full of acid and chemicals
(Hilsum, 2009), and Bradsher addressed southeast Chinese mining of ionic clays in which REEs were
mined with primitive and nonsustaining extraction methods by draining acids on soil to dissolve REEs.
The acids are then washed into groundwater and rivers and poison soils (Bradsher, 2009). The US
Environmental Protection Agency dealt with the negative environmental impacts of REE mining in
both China and the US and confirmed reported damage (EPA, 2012). However, the negative effects to
nature are not solely associated with REE mining but accompany all mining, beneficiation, separation,
and refining activities irrespective of the raw material. Mining leads to encroachments on nature and
requires energy, fuels, and chemicals, which have to be remediated accordingly. If this is not done
properly, environmental damage is inevitable.
For REEs, environmental damage has certainly occurred, but to solve the problem, one more aspect
has to be considered: What caused the impact? Was it due to nonexisting environmental procedures in
legal mining or to inadequate adherence to existing regulations, or can damage be traced back to illegal
and prohibited activities?
3.3 RECYCLING
Recycling of several REEs has been demonstrated at least in research and at laboratory levels.
Binnemans et al. discussed various approaches in a comprehensive meta-study with disappointing
results that in 2011 only about 1% of REEs had been recycled (Binnemans et al., 2013). Research
about in-use stocks of REEs was provided by Du and Graedel (2011); one result for 2007 was that the
stock of La, Ce, Nd, and Pr equaled four times annual production. In case of no recycling, the sheer
amount of current dissipative use becomes apparent. If products that contain REEs are recycled today,
usually base and noble metals are regained but the REEs are lost and disappear in slags or residues or
get stored in landfill sites. In fact, considerable dissipation has to be assumed for most REEs.
Nevertheless, recycling of these application areas was investigated and basically validated: the
recycling of phosphors from energy-saving lamps and light-emitting diodes (LEDs) to obtain mainly
europium, terbium, and yttrium; the recycling of batteries of the nickel metal hydride type (NiMH),
from which mainly lanthanum, but also cerium, praseodymium, and neodymium can be extracted; and
the recycling of neodymium-iron-boron (NdFeB) permanent magnets to regain neodymium, praseo-
dymium, and dysprosium. In the latter case, the Motor Recycling project in Germany in 2011–2014 led
by Siemens (2011) showed promising results for future recycling.
3.4 SUBSTITUTION
The special characteristics of the REEs predispose them for a huge variety of applications and functions.
For most, no direct substitutes are available, i.e., element for element, but several systemic substitutes are
on the market. In the case of NdFeB magnets, no direct replacement of Nd or Pr is known. On a systems
level other magnet types are available but most do not reach the strength of NdFeB-type magnets or
cannot be produced small enough with the same performance; direct or systemic substitutions are only
partially possible.
One disadvantage of NdFeB magnets is their susceptibility to operating temperatures above about
100 C. Once these are reached, the magnets begin to lose their remanence (magnetic characteristics).
The addition of about 3–6% dysprosium enhances the Curie temperature (the resistance to higher
temperatures) so that the magnets are suitable for application in automotive traction motors. To reduce
the need for dysprosium, which is one of the rare REEs, intensive research has begun to identify
substitutes for dysprosium or even for magnets with no REEs (ARPA-E, 2015; Arnold Magnetics,
2013).
In the case of wind turbines, those based on REE magnets do not have a direction substitution
material; on the systemic level, however, there are other efficient technologies in operation such as
asynchronous drive turbines or electrically excited direct drive WTGs.
For phosphors in lighting applications, no potential substitutes are currently available, but the
invention of LEDs led to one way to reduce phosphor quantities. Batteries of the NiMH type received
competition by lithium-ion technology, which has better energy densities and thus smaller sizes, faster
recharging, no memory effect, less discharging, and longer power availability (Bosch, 2015).
In summary, the search for substitutes sounds ambiguous because for several applications systemic
alternatives are available (e.g., wind turbines); the R/P is more than 1200 years, and research on
recycling is pushed forward.
4. APPLICATIONS
The REEs are a group of 17 elements that have some similarities but also individual characteristics so
that each element has a variety of applications, summarized in Table 1.
It should be noted that this list does not show which quantities of REEs are required in the various
applications, nor does it say whether demand and supply are balanced or if there exist surpluses or
deficits of supply.
Another depiction of applications is often used along application areas such as permanent magnets,
phosphors, battery alloys, fluid catalytic cracking (FCC), ceramics, glass additives, polishing powders,
auto catalysts, and metallurgy. Table 2 shows the use of selected REEs in various applications.
A dominant argument is often cited that REEs are indispensable or at least necessary for high-
technology applications, lifestyle products, and products and systems that guarantee the changeover
to a low-carbon energy society. The consideration that REEs are required for high-technology products
is correct, but this message does not say which element is required for which application in what
quantity. Cerium, for example, is required to produce automotive catalysts to enable, together with
noble metals platinum or palladium, an efficient exhaust emission control. This application is certainly
a high-tech one and serves the environment. Cerium is currently the most available REE and thus is not
critical with respect to general physical existence, nor is there a supply risk expected, because China
itself probably is interested in selling huge amounts of (cheap) cerium to obtain at least some cash back
to support operations.
The statement that wind turbines require REEs is often heard, but again this dogmatic-sounding
“fact” usually implies a wrong perception, that all wind turbines require REEs. This definitely is
not the case. The share of asynchronous wind technology that does not contain REE-based generators
was at about 82% at the end of 2013 (Smith, 2014), with 318 GW of wind energy installed globally
(GWEC, 2014). The remaining 18% were direct drive systems, of which about half were ENERCON
turbines that use separately excited magnets using copper wiring (Zepf, 2015). In fact, about 9% or
about 30 GW of installed WTGs are based on REE magnets. Direct drive systems incorporate features
and characteristics that make them more suitable or advantageous for locations such as offshore
wind parks.
4. APPLICATIONS 11
Table 1 List of (Selected) REE Applications

La · Nickel metal hydride batteries (Prius, forklifts) Dy · Additive to Nd Fe
2 14B permanent
· Hydrogen storage alloys LaNi magnets to improve high-temperature
· Alloying
3
agent performance, increase coercivity
· Sputtering targets · Phosphors
· Optical lenses · Nuclear industryeradiation shielding
· Host for phosphors
· Petroleum fluid catalytic cracking (FCC)
· Cathode material in solid oxide fuel cell
Ce · Catalyst for automotive three-way-emission Ho · Research
catalysts · Metal halide lamps
· Petroleum fluid catalytic cracking (FCC) · YIG (yttrium-iron-garnet) lasers
· Glass additives · YAG and YLF solid-state lasers
· Decolorizer, opacifier
· Ultraviolet light absorption
· Polishing media for glass, lenses,
semiconductors
· Phosphors
Pr · Additive to Nd Fe B Er · Fiber opticsesignal amplifiers
· Pr-stabilized · Lasers
2 14
ZrO (mainly medical/surgical and
· Coloring
2
agents dental use)
· Glass blower’s and welder’s goggles (with Nd) · Coloring agent
· Telecommunication
fluoride fibers
systems as dopant in
Nd · Nd Fe B permanent magnets Tm · X-ray intensifying screens

· Alloying agent for Mg alloys · Metal halide lamps
2 14
· Lasers · Research
· Metal halide lamps
· Nd-stabilized ZrO synthetic gems
· SmCo permanent magnets · Optical lenses
2
Sm Yb
· Coloring agent · Pressure sensors (metal)
· Phosphors · Research
· Nuclear industryeradiation shielding
Eu · Phosphors (red colors) Lu · Research
· Nuclear industryeradiation shielding · Host for scintillator detectors and X-ray
phosphors
Gd · Host for phosphors Sc · High-performance alloys
· Magnetic resonance imaging contrast agents · Lasers
· Nuclear fuel rod addition, safety · Phosphors
· X-ray intensifying screen · Ceramics
· Laser YGG (yttrium-gadolinium-garnet)
Tb · Phosphors (green) Y · Host for phosphors
· X-ray intensifying screens · YAG laser host material
· Terfenol-D (Tb Dy )Fe · Y-stabilized ZrO
· Magneto-restrictive alloy · YIG
x y 2 2
(yttrium-iron-garnet)e
communications, radars, phase shifters
· YBa CuO high-temperature
2 2
superconductor
· Alloying agent
Note: This is list is not all-inclusive.
Source: Gschneidner (2011) and Gupta and Krishnamurthy (2005).
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
8. The 1st Kansas regiment, on its march from Sedalia to
Lexington, Mo., was fired upon from ambush, and a sergeant and 2
horses killed.
8. A. W. Bradford was inaugurated as Governor of Maryland, and
made an eloquent address, expressing in the strongest terms
devotion to the Union and the Constitution.
8. Major W. M. G. Torrence of the 1st Iowa cavalry, assisted by
detachments of the 1st Missouri cavalry, Major Hubbard, 4th Ohio
and Merrill’s Horse, in all 500 mounted men, attacked a rebel camp
at Silver Creek, Howard Co., Mo., where six or eight hundred men
were stationed, under Col. Poindexter. The enemy were routed with a
loss of 12 killed, 22 wounded, and 15 prisoners, leaving their horses,
guns, and camp and garrison equipage. The material was destroyed
by Major Torrence. Federal loss 3 killed and 10 wounded.
9. A division of the Chamber of Commerce at St. Louis, Mo., was
occasioned by disloyal sentiments. A new and loyal Chamber was
formed.
10. A reconnoitering force of 5,000 men under the command of
Brig. Gen. McClernand, left Cairo, Ill., and proceeded toward
Columbus and Mayfield.
10. Waldo P. Johnson and Trusten Polk, U. S. Senators from
Missouri, were expelled from the Senate for disloyalty.
10. Skirmish at Pohick Church, Va. The 5th Michigan dispersed a
body of rebels.
10. Skirmish at Bath, Va., between a detachment of Federals under
Capt. Russell and rebels from Gen. Jackson’s division.
10. Battle near Prestonburg, Ky. Gen. Garfield, with 1,500 Federal
troops, overtook Humphrey Marshall with 3,000 rebels, compelling
him to destroy his stores and putting him to flight. Rebel loss 50
killed many wounded and 25 prisoners. Federal loss, 2 killed, 25
wounded.
11. The 1st Kansas regiment arrived at Lexington, Mo., and
arrested several prominent rebels. They also seized a large quantity
of stores designed for the use of Gen. Price.
11. Fifty rebels belonging to Col. Alexander’s regiment were
captured 6 miles from Sedalia, Mo.
12. The Burnside Expedition sailed from Fortress Monroe, under
command of Com. Goldsborough and Gen. Burnside, for Albemarle
Sound, N. C.
12. Secretary Seward telegraphed the British Consul at Portland,
Me., that British troops might pass through U. S. territory on their
way to Canada.
12. The rebels in Kentucky burned the houses, and carried off or
destroyed the property of loyal men at Horse Cave and in Cave City
and vicinity, and the people sought refuge at Munfordsville.
13. Hon. Simeon Cameron, Secretary of War, resigned his position,
and Edwin F. Stanton was appointed in his stead on the 15th inst.
13. The steamship Constitution, with the Maine 12th regiment, and
the Bay State regiment, sailed from Boston for Ship Island, Miss.,
via. Fortress Monroe.
15. Gen. McClernand’s column advanced to Mayfield, Ky., and
Gen. Grant to Fort Jefferson. 20,000 rebels reported at Columbus,
Ky., under Gen. Polk.
16. Hon. Edwin B. Stanton, the new Secretary of War, assumed the
duties of his office.
17. 150 wounded Federal prisoners arrived at Fortress Monroe
from Richmond, Va. Eight rebel officers were released from the
Fortress the same day.
17. Capture of British schooner Stephen Hart, loaded with arms,
ammunition and stores for the rebels, by the U. S. storeship Supply.
17. Ex-President John Tyler died at Richmond, Va.
17. Skirmish near Ironton, Mo. Rebels under Jeff. Thompson were
defeated by Col. Miles.
17. Two companies of the 1st Kansas cavalry, under Major
Halderman, arrested Capt. Whitney, Joe Shelby and several other
rebel officers, and also recovered a number of horses, mules, wagons,
etc., taken from Col. Mulligan’s command at Lexington, Mo.
17. The Fortification Bill passed the U. S. House of
Representatives, appropriating $5,960,000 for fort and harbor
defences.
18. Gen. Grant made a reconnoissance in force towards Columbus,
Ky.
18. Gen. Halleck levied an assessment on the wealthy secessionists
of St. Louis, Mo., to provide for the wants of loyal refugees in the city
who had been driven from their homes in the S. W. section of the
State by rebels.
18. Capts. Murdock and Webster, with their commands, returned
to Cairo from an expedition to Bloomfield, Mo. They captured Lieut.
Col. Farmer and 11 other rebel officers and 68 privates, with a
quantity of army stores.
19. Battle of Mill Spring, Ky. The rebels completely routed, with
loss of 192 killed, and 140 prisoners. Gen. Zollicoffer, their
commander, was killed. The Federal troops were under Gen.
Thomas. 1,200 horses and mules, over 100 large wagons, and 14
cannon, 2,000 muskets, etc., were captured. Federal loss 39 killed,
207 wounded.
19. The U. S. gunboat Itasca captured the rebel schooner Lizzie
Weston, off Florida, laden with 293 bales of cotton, 152,500 pounds,
for Jamaica.
23. The property of several wealthy secessionists at St. Louis was
seized under execution by Gen. Halleck, and sold to pay the
assessment to support Union refugees.
23. The second stone fleet was sunk in Maffit’s Channel,
Charleston, S. C., harbor.
24. The Federal light boat off Cape Henry, at the mouth of the
Chesapeake, went ashore and was captured by the rebels, with its
crew of 7 men.
24. Two rebel vessels laden with cotton, while attempting to pass
the blockade at the mouth of the Mississippi, ran aground, were
deserted and burned. The fire was extinguished on board the
Calhoun and that vessel captured.
26. The Burnside Expedition reached Pamlico Sound.
26. A military Commission at Palmyra, Mo., sentenced 7 bridge-
burners to be shot.
28. Federal troops occupied Lebanon, Mo.
28. Rev. Bishop Ames and Hon. Hamilton Fish, of N. Y., were
appointed by Secretary of War Stanton to visit the U. S. prisoners in
captivity at Richmond, Va., to devise means for providing for their
comfort. The Commissioners were not allowed to visit Richmond,
but they opened negotiations for the exchange of prisoners.
28. Skirmish between 50 men of the 37th N. Y. regiment under
Lieut.-Col. Burke, and a body of Texas rangers near Colchester, on
the Occoquan river, Va., in which 9 rebels were killed. Two Federals
were killed, and 2 wounded.
29. The iron-clad battery Monitor was launched at Greenpoint, N.
Y.
29. Reconnoissance on either side of the Savannah river from the
Federal fleet at Port Royal, through the Wilmington Narrows and
Wall’s Cut, by which the feasibility of cutting off Fort Pulaski from
communication with Savannah was demonstrated.
30. Gen. Beauregard took command of rebel troops in Tennessee.
30. The rebel commissioners, Mason and Slidell, arrived at
Southampton, England.
30. Rebels under Capt. John Morgan, seized six Union men at a
church near Lebanon, Ky. They set fire to the church, and attempted
to burn one of the prisoners in the flames, who effected his escape.
31. An order from the Secretary of State released all civilians who
were captured on board vessels attempting to violate the blockade.
31. Five telegraph operators were captured by the rebels near
Campbellsville, Ky.
31. Queen Victoria declared her determination to observe strict
neutrality during the American contest, and to prevent the use of
English vessels and harbors to aid the belligerents.
Feb. 1. The 2d Cavalry, 41st Indiana, had a skirmish near Bowling
Green, Ky., in which 3 rebels were killed and 2 wounded. No loss on
the Federal side.
1. The Spanish steamer Duero arrived at Liverpool, England, from
Cadiz, bringing as passengers Captains Minott, of the Vigilant; Smith
of the Arcade, and Hoxie, of the Eben Dodge—three American
vessels which had been burned by the privateer Sumter.
1. An octavo volume of 1,100 pages was published as a report by a
Committee from the U. S. House of Representatives, appointed July,
1861, to investigate frauds in Government contracts.
1. The President of the U. S. was empowered by act of Congress to
take possession of all the railway and telegraphic lines throughout
the country, whenever requisite for military purposes, till the close of
the rebellion.
1. An interesting conference was held by U. S. Commissioner Dole
with the loyal chiefs of the Seminole, Creek, Iowa, and Delaware
Indians, in which the warriors pledged themselves to conquer the
rebel Indians who had driven them from their homes.
2. A skirmish occurred in Morgan county, Penn., between a body
of rebel cavalry, under Lieut.-Col. White, and a company of Federal
infantry, under Captain Duncan, in which the Federals were
defeated, with a loss of seven men.
2. 386 rank and file and 11 officers, rebel prisoners, were sent to
Fortress Monroe, from Boston harbor, to be exchanged for an equal
number of Federal prisoners.
3. The privateersmen confined in the City Prison, N. Y., were
transferred to Fort Lafayette, and there held as political prisoners.
3. In conformity with the decision of the British Ministry, the
privateer Nashville was sent off from Southampton, England, and the
U. S. gunboat Tuscarora detained from pursuing her for the space of
24 hours.
3. A flag of truce from the rebels to Gen. McDowell, brought a
document from Jeff. Davis to President Lincoln, threatening to hang
Cols. Corcoran, Lee, and others, prisoners in their hands, in
retaliation, should the punishment of death be inflicted on the
bridge-burners who had been convicted in Missouri.
3. The Federal army under Gen. Grant were within 3 miles of Fort
Henry, on the Tennessee river.
4. Capt. Lowing, with 80 men from Cos. F and H, Third Michigan,
encountered a body of rebels near Occoquan, Va., whom they
dispersed. 4 of the rebels were shot. No loss sustained by the
Federals.
4. A scouting party under Capt. Harkness, of Col. Miles’ 81st Pa.
regiment, returned from the vicinity of Fairfax Court House, Va.,
bringing several rebel prisoners.
4. Steamship Constitution, with the Mass. Bay State, and the
Maine 12th regiments, and other troops, under Gen. Phelps, left
Fortress Monroe for Ship Island, Miss.
5. Attack on Fort Henry, Tenn. commenced by Federal gunboats
under Com. Foote.
5. Queen Victoria, of England, removed the prohibitions relating to
the export of material of war from the British dominions declared on
the 30th Nov. and 4th Dec., 1861.
6. Jesse D. Bright, of Indiana, was expelled from the U. S. Senate,
for complicity with treason.
7. A band of rebels concealed near the landing at Harper’s Ferry,
Va., having, by means of a flag of truce, decoyed a boat from the
Maryland shore, and then fired on its occupants, by order of Col.
Geary, the block of large buildings facing the landing were burned.
But seven families, 40 persons in all, then resided in the town.
7. Unconditional surrender of Fort Henry to Com. Foote, with Gen.
Tilghman and staff, one colonel, two captains, and 80 privates. Com.
Foote transferred the fort to Gen. Grant.
7. Federal troops took possession of the Memphis and Ohio
railway.
7. The rebels driven from Romney, Va., by Gen. Lander, who
occupied the town.
7. Successful skirmish with rebel cavalry near Fairfax Court House,
Va., by Col. Friedman, with the Cameron Dragoons; 1 rebel killed,
and 12 captured, with 12 horses, &c. 2 Federals wounded.
8. Portions of Gen. Butler’s expedition sailed from Boston and
from Fortress Monroe, for Ship Island, Miss.
8. Capture of rebel forts and garrisons on Roanoke Island, N. C.,
by the Federal forces under Com. Goldsborough and Gen. Burnside.
2,500 prisoners, 6 forts, 40 guns, 3,000 small arms. Federal loss, 50
killed, 150 wounded.
8. Capt. Smith, of the 5th Virginia (loyal) with 21 men, surprised
32 of Jenkins’ cavalry on Linn Creek, Logan County, Va., killing 8,
wounding 7, and capturing the remainder, with 32 horses. One
Federal was killed and 1 wounded.
9. Skirmish of a body of Federal cavalry with rebels near Fort
Henry, Tenn. 5 rebels killed, and 30 taken prisoners.
9. Edenton, N. C., occupied by Federal troops.
10. Destruction of rebel gunboats in the Pasquotank river, N. C.,
also of the rebel battery at Cobb’s Point, and the occupation of
Elizabeth City by Federal forces from 14 gunboats, commanded by
Capt. Rowan.
10. Gen. Charles P. Stone, U. S. A., was arrested by Gov’t. order,
and imprisoned in Fort Lafayette.
10. Arrest of several male and female secessionists in Washington.
Also, of Dr. Ives, N. Y. Herald correspondent.
10. Capt. Phelps, of Com. Foote’s squadron, commanding the
gunboats Conestoga, Taylor, and Lexington, captured a new rebel
gunboat, and destroyed all the rebel craft between Fort Henry and
Florence, Ala.
11. Bursting of the “Sawyer” gun at Newport News, Va., by which 2
Federal soldiers were killed and 2 wounded.
12. An expedition under the command of Col. Reggin returned to
Fort Henry, Tenn., from up the Tennessee river, having captured
$75,000 worth of contraband goods at Paris, Tenn., and also the
tents and camp equipage of the rebel troops that retreated from Fort
Henry.
13. Evacuation of Springfield, Mo., by the rebel army under Gen.
Price. Occupation of the town by Federal troops of Gen. Curtis’ army.
600 of the rebel sick, and many forage wagons were left behind.
14. The rebel camp at Blooming Gap, Va., was surprised by forces
under Gen. Lander. 65 prisoners were taken, including 17 officers,
and 13 killed and 20 wounded. Federal loss, 7 in killed and wounded.
14. Fort Donelson was invested and attacked by the Federal army
under Gen. Grant.
14. E. M. Stanton, Sec. of War, issued an order releasing all
political prisoners upon their taking an oath of allegiance.
14. A skirmish took place near Flat Lick Ford, on the Cumberland
river, Ky., between two companies of cavalry, under Col. Munday,
two companies of the 49th Indiana, and some rebel pickets, in which
the latter lost 4 killed, 4 wounded, and 3 taken prisoners. There was
no Federal loss.
14. Com. Foote, with 6 gunboats, attacked Fort Donelson, but was
repulsed, the Commodore being severely wounded. Federal loss 60
in killed and wounded.
14. The rear guard of Gen. Price’s army in S. W. Missouri was
attacked by Gen. Curtis’ command, and many prisoners taken.
14. Bowling Green, Ky., was evacuated by rebel troops, who
destroyed most of the available property in the town that could not
be removed.
14. Three rebel schooners and one sloop, laden with rice, were
destroyed by the crews of armed boats from the U. S. bark Restless,
Lieut. E. Conroy, in Bull’s Bay, S.C.
15. The national batteries at Venus Point, on the Savannah river,
were attacked by 4 rebel gunboats, which were repulsed, one of them
being severely injured.
15. The railway bridge crossing the Tennessee river at Decatur,
Ala., was destroyed by Union men.
15. Gen. Burnside administered the oath of allegiance to the
inhabitants of Roanoke Island.
15. The iron-clad steam gunboat Galena was launched at Mystic,
Conn.
16. Gen. Price was driven from Missouri by Gen. Curtis, who
followed him into Arkansas, capturing many prisoners.
16. Gen. Mitchell’s troops occupied Bowling Green, Ky.
16. Fort Donelson surrendered to the Federal army, under Gen.
Grant, after three days’ desperate resistance. 15,000 prisoners were
captured, including Brig.-Gen. Buckner, and an immense quantity of
war material. Gens. Floyd and Pillow escaped, with a portion of the
garrison.
16. Destruction of the “Tennessee Iron works,” owned by John Bell
and Messrs. Lewis & Wood, on the Cumberland river, six miles above
Dover, by order of Com. Foote.
17. The First Missouri cavalry fell into an ambush of rebels at
Sugar Creek, Ark., by which 13 of their number were killed and
wounded.
18. Gov. Rector of Arkansas, by proclamation, called every man
subject to military duty into service within 20 days.
18. First session of the Congress of the “permanent” Government
of the Confederate States opened at Richmond, Va.
18. The wire and suspension bridges over the Cumberland river at
Nashville, Tenn., were destroyed by Gen. Floyd, despite the
remonstrances of the citizens.
18. A skirmish at Independence, Mo., between a detachment of
Ohio cavalry and a band of rebels under Quantrel and Parker. 3
rebels killed, several wounded and taken prisoners. 1 Federal killed,
3 wounded.
19. 1,000 additional rebel prisoners were taken at Fort Donelson,
they having come down the river to reinforce Gen. Buckner.
19. Evacuation of Clarksville, Tenn., by the rebels. The Federal
forces, under Com. Foote, took possession of the town, and captured
a large quantity of army stores.
19. Bentonville, Ark., was captured by Gen. Curtis, after a short
engagement with the rebels, in which more prisoners and supplies
were taken.
20. The rebel steamer Magnolia, with 1,050 bales of cotton, was
captured in the Gulf of Mexico, by the U. S. steamers Brooklyn and
South Carolina. An attempt to fire the vessel was frustrated by the
Federal seamen.
20. The town of Winton, N. C., was partially burned by the
national forces.
20. The track of the Memphis and Ohio railway was torn up, and
the bridges burned in many places, by order of rebel Gen. Polk.
21. Battle of Valvende, N. M. 1,500 Federals, under Col. Canby,
were defeated by an equal force of rebels, under Col. Steele. Federal
loss, 55 killed, 140 wounded. Rebel loss, about the same.
22. Inauguration of Jefferson Davis, of Miss., as President of the
“Confederate States,” at Richmond, Va., and Alex. H. Stevens, of Ga.,
as Vice President, they having received the unanimous vote of 109
delegates representing 11 States, viz.: Ala., Ark., Fla., Ga., La., Miss.,
N. C., S. C., Tenn., Texas, Va., for the permanent organization of the
Confederate States.
22. The U. S. sloop-of-war Adironac was launched at Brooklyn, N.
Y.
23. 347 released Federal prisoners arrived at Fortress Monroe,
among them Cols. Lee, Wood and Coggswell.
23. Lieut. Guin, of Com. Foote’s command, made a reconnoissance
up the Tenn. river as high as Eastport, Miss., being well received by
the inhabitants. At Clifton, Tenn., he took possession of 1500 sacks
and barrels of flour and 6,000 bush. of wheat.
23. Gallatin, Tenn., occupied by Gen. Buell’s forces.
23. A skirmish at Mason’s Neck, near Occoquan, Va., between
Texas rangers, and part of the N. Y. 37th, in which 2 of the latter
were killed and 1 wounded.
24. Harpers’ Ferry, Va., occupied by the 28th Pa. regiment.
25. Nashville, Tenn., was occupied by Federal forces of Gen. Buell’s
command.
25. The 9th Ohio and 2d Minnesota regiments received handsome
flags from ladies of Louisville, Ky., in compliment of their valor at
Mill Spring, Jan. 19.
25. The remainder of Gen. Bank’s division crossed the Potomac
and occupied Bolivar and Charlestown, Va.
25. All the telegraphic lines that could be used by government were
taken under military control, and the transmission of reports of
military operations forbidden, without permission of the military
censor.
26. Cotton and tobacco planters of Va., at a meeting held at
Richmond, refused to consent to the destruction of their crops.
26. The command of Capt. Montgomery, was surprised by a large
force of rebels at Keittsville, Barry Co., Mo. 2 Federals were killed, 1
wounded, and 40 of their horses captured.
26. The U. S. gunboat R. B. Forbes ran ashore near Nag’s Head, N.
C., was set on fire and destroyed.
27. Fayetteville, Ark., was occupied by Gen. Curtis, who captured a
number of prisoners, stores, &c. The rebels retreated across the
Boston Mountains.
27. 42 Federal soldiers were poisoned at Mud Town, Ark., by
eating food which had been left for them by rebels.
27. Col. Wood’s cavalry drove rebels out of Dent, Texas and Howell
Cos., Mo., capturing 60 prisoners.
27. U. S. iron-clad battery Monitor, Lieut. Worden, sailed from N.
York for Fortress Monroe.
28. The British ship Labuan, with a valuable cargo, arrived at N.
York, captured by the U. S. sloop-of-war Portsmouth off Rio Grande
river.
28. The rebel steamer Nashville ran the blockade of Beaufort, N.
C., and reached the town.
28. Capt. Nolen with 64 of the 7th Ill. cavalry attacked 90 of Jeff.
Thompson’s cavalry and a battery, west of Charlestown, Mo., and
captured 4 guns, losing 1 man.
March 1. The U. S. gunboats Tyler, Lieut. Gwin, commanding,
and Lexington, Lieut. Shirk, on an expedition up the Tenn. river,
engaged and silenced a rebel battery at Pittsburg, Tenn., 7 miles
above Savannah.
1. Evacuation of Columbus Ky., by rebel troops, leaving their heavy
guns, and a large quantity of war material. 400 of the 2d Illinois
cavalry occupied the town next day, and troops from Com. Foote’s
flotilla the day after.
1. U. S. steamer Mount Vernon, captured the schooner British
Queen, at the blockade of Wilmington, N. C.
1. John Minor Botts, Valentine Hecker, Franklin Stearns, and
others were arrested at Richmond Va., on a charge of “treason.”
2. Death of Brig.-Gen. Lander, at Camp Chase, on the Upper
Potomac, from a wound received at Edwards’ Ferry Va., Oct. 22,
1861.
3. Brig.-Gens. S. B. Buckner and Lloyd Tilghman, rebel prisoners,
arrived at Fort Warren, Boston, Mass.
3. U.S. Senate confirmed Gens. McDowell, Buell Burnside,
McClernand, C. F. Smith, Lew. Wallace and Sigel as Maj.-Gens.; and
Cols. Speed, of Tenn., Logan of Ill., McArthur of Iowa, Lauman of
Iowa, Wallace of Ind., McCook of Ohio, Berry of Maine, and Terry of
Conn., as Brigadiers.
4. Occupation of Fort Clinch and Fernandina, Fla., and St. Mary’s
and Brunswick, Ga., by Federal forces under Com. Dupont and Gen.
Wright.
4. A squadron of 1st Michigan cavalry surprised and defeated a
party of rebel cavalry at Berryville, Va., killing 3 and capturing 9
horses without loss.
4. Two bridges on the Nashville and Decatur railway, Tenn.,
destroyed by rebels.
5. Bunker Hill, Va., was occupied by rebel forces.
6. Two rebel officers were captured at Vienna, Va., by a
detachment of Col. Averill’s cavalry.
6 A rebel picket of 5 was captured by Van Alen’s cavalry near
Bunker Hill, Va.
7. Capt. Cole’s Maryland cavalry encountered a few of Ashby’s
rebel cavalry, near Winchester, Va., 6 rebels were killed and 5
wounded. Capt. Cole had 3 men wounded.
6, 7, 8. Battle of Pea Ridge, Ark. The combined rebel forces under
Gens. Van Dorn, Price, McCulloch and Pike, were defeated by the
Federal army under Gens. Curtis, Sigel, Asboth and Davis. Federal
loss in killed, wounded and missing, 1351. The rebel loss about 2000.
Gens. McCulloch, McIntosh and Slack, were killed.
8. Destruction of the U. S. sloop-of-war Cumberland, and the
frigate Congress, in action with the rebel iron battery Merrimac, in
Hampton Roads, Va. 100 men were killed or drowned on the
Cumberland.
8. By order of the President, Maj.-Gen. McClellan was directed to
organize and command the army of the Potomac, divided into 5 army
corps, under Maj. Gens. McDowell, Brig.-Gens. E. V. Sumner, S. P.
Heintzelman, E. L. Keyes and N. P. Banks.
8. Col. Geary entered Leesburg, Va., capturing many prisoners,
stores, &c.
8. Manassas, Va., was evacuated by the rebels.
9. Combat of the U. S. iron battery Monitor, and the rebel iron
battery Merrimac, in Hampton Roads, Va. After a desperate combat
of 3 hours, the Merrimac was compelled to retire, having received
severe injuries.
9. The rebel battery at Cockpit Point, on the Potomac captured by
Federal troops.
9. Brilliant charge of 14 of the Lincoln cavalry at Burk’s station,
near Fairfax Court House, Va., against 100 infantry, 3 of whom were
killed, 5 wounded and 11 captured. Lieut. Hidden was killed.
10. Lieut. O. Houston and 8 men of 2d Ohio battery was captured
in S. W. Mo. by Texas rangers.
10. Centreville, Va., was occupied by national forces, the bridges,
railway track, depot, &c. having been destroyed by rebels.
11. Gen. Pope’s troops occupied Point Pleasant, Mo., 8 miles below
New Madrid.
11. Berryville, Va., was occupied by Gen. Gorman, of Gen. Bank’s
division.
11. The country intervening between the Department of the
Potomac and that of the Mississippi, was organized as the “Mountain
Department,” and assigned to Gen. Fremont.
11. The “Department of the Miss.,” was organized and assigned to
Gen. Halleck, which included his previous department, and that of
Gen. Hunter’s in Kansas; also all of Gen. Buell’s west of Knoxville,
Tenn.
11. Occupation of St. Augustine, Fla., by Federal naval forces under
Com. Rogers.
12. Winchester, Va., was occupied by national troops, who
captured rebel stores.
12. Curtis’s Iowa cavalry and a battalion of the 1st Nebraska,
defeated 600 rebels and occupied Paris, Ky.
12. Occupation of Jacksonville, Fla., by Federal forces from the U.
S. gunboats Ottawa, Seneca, and Pembina, under command of Lieut.
T. F. Stevens.
13. Brunswick, Ga., was occupied by Federal forces under Flag-
officer Dupont.
14. The rebels driven from New Madrid, Mo., which was occupied
by Gens. Pope and Hamilton’s forces, who captured military stores
valued at $100,000. Federal loss during the siege 51 killed and
wounded.
14. Battle of Newbern, N. C. Gen. Burnside’s forces attacked and
carried a continuous line of redoubts of half a mile in extent, after 4
hours’ engagement. The rebels in their retreat set fire to the town,
which was extinguished by the Federals with slight damage. 200
prisoners and 6 forts were taken, mounting 40 heavy guns. Federal
loss, 39 killed, 150 wounded. Rebel loss, 50 killed, 200 wounded.
14. A detachment of Ohio and Indiana troops, under Col. Carter
and Lieut. Col. Keigwin, from their camp at Cumberland Ford, Ky.,
attacked 300 rebels on the Cumberland Mountains, and defeated
them, killing 3, wounding 6, and capturing 3 officers and 15 privates,
59 horses, 100 guns, 100 sabres and other material.
15. The Federal gunboats and mortars, under Com. Foote, began
the investment and assault of Island No. 10, on the Miss.
16. Two rebel captains and 17 privates were captured on Indian
Creek, Arkansas.
17. Federal forces in Va., under Gen. Shields, advanced from
Winchester and drove the enemy toward Strasburg.
18. The rebel fleet on the Mississippi at Island No. 10, attacked
Com. Foote’s flotilla, but retired after slight loss on either side, the
rebels crippling two of the Federal gunboats with their rams.
20. 67 citizens of Loudon co., Va., were sent to Richmond on the
Central cars, and committed to one of the military prisons.
21. Santa Fé, N. M., was seized by 100 rebel Texans, under Major
C. L. Pyron.
21. Washington, N. C., occupied by Federal troops under Col.
Stevenson.
22. Rebel forces, under Gens. Jackson, Smith and Longstreet,
advanced upon Winchester, Va., where Gen. Shields’ forces engaged
them successfully until night.
22. A skirmish occurred between a detachment of the 6th Kansas
and Quantrall’s band, near Independence, Mo. The latter was routed
with 7 killed. The Federals lost 1 killed, and captured 11 prisoners
and 20 horses.
22. Lieut. T. A. Budd and Acting Master Mather, attached to Flag-
officer Dupont’s squadron, having imprudently ventured on shore,
with a portion of their men, to examine a rebel earthwork, near
Mosquito Inlet, Fla., were fired upon by a party of rebels in ambush.
Both officers and 5 men were killed, and several wounded.
23. Morehead City, N. C., was occupied by Federal troops under
Gen. Parke.
23. Battle of Winchester, Va. The fight of yesterday was renewed,
and after a desperate engagement, the rebels were driven from the
ground in disorder, with a loss of 600 killed and wounded, and 300
prisoners. Federal loss, 100 killed, 400 wounded.
25. Maj. Pyron’s Texans were defeated at Apache Cañon, between
Santa Fé and Fort Union, by Federal troops under Maj. Chivington.
26. A band of rebels attacked 4 companies of State militia at
Humansville, Polk co., Mo., and were defeated by them with a loss of
15 killed and many wounded.
27. Big Bethel, Va., was occupied by the Federal forces.
28. The Federal gunboats and mortars, under Coms. Farragut and
Porter, attacked Forts Jackson and St. Philip, La.
28. Gen. Beauregard concentrated a large force at Corinth, Miss.
28. Morgan’s rebel cavalry captured a train on the Louisville and
Nashville railway. The locomotive was run into a ditch and the cars
destroyed. Col. Currin Pope, of Ky., and several other Federal officers
were taken prisoners.
28. 1,200 U. S. troops, under Col. Slough, engaged the united rebel
forces of Col. Scurry and Maj. Pyron at Valle’s Ranch, N. M., from 10
A. M. to 5 P. M., when an armistice was agreed on. A flank movement
the next day by Maj. Chivington, with 400 men, threw the rebels into
confusion, and after burning their train, they sought safety in flight.
Rebel loss, 80 killed, 100 wounded, 93 prisoners. Federal loss, 38
killed, 54 wounded, 17 prisoners. The Texans retired to Santa Fé and
the Federals to Fort Union.
29. A detachment of the 1st Iowa cavalry, under Capt. Thompson,
overtook the guerrilla band of Col. Parker, 10 miles west of
Warrensburg, Mo. 15 rebels were killed and 25 taken prisoners,
among the latter Col. Parker and Captain Walton. 2 Federals were
killed and several wounded.
30. Maj.-Gen. Hunter arrived at Hilton Head, S. C., and assumed
command of the Department of the South, comprising South
Carolina, Georgia and Florida.
31. 220 rebels, captured at Winchester, Va., arrived at Fort
Delaware, Del. Bay.
Apr. 1. During a storm at night, Col. Roberts with 50 picked men
of the 42d Illinois, and as many seamen under First Master Johnson,
of the gunboat St. Louis, surprised the rebels at the upper battery of
Island No. 10, and spiked 6 large guns.
1. Col. Carline, commanding the advance of Gen. Steele’s brigade
in Arkansas, had a skirmish at Putnam’s Ferry, in which a rebel
lieutenant and several privates were wounded, and 5 prisoners taken.
4. All of Maryland and Virginia lying between the Mountain
Department and the Blue Ridge, was constituted the military
Department of the Shenandoah, and assigned to Maj.-Gen. Banks;
and that portion of Virginia east of the Blue Ridge and west of the
Potomac constituted the Department of the Rappahannock, and was
assigned to Maj.-Gen. McDowell.
1. Gen. Banks advanced from Strasburg, Va., to Woodstock, and
thence to Edenburg, driving the enemy with slight skirmishing. The
railway bridge at Edenburg was burnt by rebels under Gen. Jackson.
1. Heavy bombardment at Island No. 10.
2. Manassas Gap, Va., was occupied by Col. Geary’s troops by
strategy, frustrating a similar attempt by the rebels.
3. U. S. Senate passed a bill for the abolition of slavery in the
District of Columbia, by a vote of 29 yeas, 14 nays.
3. Gen. Steele’s forces in the advance of Gen. Curtis’ army, reached
Putnam, Ark.
4. A schooner containing 24 recruits en route for the rebel army,
was captured on Black creek, near the Potomac river, Va.
4. The Federal gunboat Carondelet ran past the rebel batteries at
Island No. 10, at night, without damage, and arrived at New Madrid.
5. Gen. McClellan’s army advanced through a severe storm from
Camp Misery, and after a tedious march arrived in front of the rebel
works, and commenced the siege of Yorktown, Va. Heavy firing
throughout the day resulted in a loss to the Federals of 3 killed, 22
wounded.
5. Federal transports and barges arrived at New Madrid, Mo.,
through the inland channel, cut by Col. Bissel’s engineer corps, thus
avoiding the rebel batteries at No. 10.
6–7. Battle of Pittsburg Landing, Tenn. The combined rebel army,
under Gens. Johnston and Beauregard, attacked Gen. Grant’s army
on the morning of the 6th. Federal loss, 1,614 killed, 7,721 wounded,
3,963 missing—total, 13,508; rebel loss, (Beauregard’s report,) 1,728
killed, 8,012 wounded, 959 missing—total, 10,699.
7. Gen. Pope, with the assistance of the gunboats Pittsburg and
Carondelet, landed his forces on the Tennessee shore, opposite New
Madrid, and took position in rear of Island No. 10, at Tiptonville.
7. Island No. 10 on the Mississippi, and the adjacent works on the
Tenn. shore, were abandoned by the rebels and taken possession of
by Col. Buford’s brigade.
7. Apalachicola, Fla., was captured by the Federal gunboats
Mercedita and Sagamore.
8. Surrender of the rebel army of 5,200 men and all their stores,
under Gens. Mackall and Gantt, to the Federal forces under Gen.
Paine, of Gen. Pope’s division, at Tiptonville, Tenn.
8. Gen. W. T. Sherman was dispatched by Gen. Grant with a large
reconnoitering force on the Corinth, Miss., road. A portion of his
force was routed by a charge of rebel cavalry, and 15 killed and 25
wounded of the 77th Ohio regiment.
10. Huntsville, Ala., was occupied by Gen. Mitchel’s forces. 200
prisoners, 15 locomotives, and many cars captured.
10. Batteries on Tybee Island commenced the attack of Fort
Pulaski, Ga.
10. President Lincoln, by proclamation, recommended the people
throughout the United States on the Sabbath succeeding the receipt
of his Proclamation to return thanks to Almighty God for having
vouchsafed signal victories over rebellious enemies, and also for
having averted the dangers of foreign interference and invasion.
11. Surrender of Fort Pulaski, Ga., after a bombardment of two
days. Federal loss, 1 killed, 1 wounded; rebels, 3 wounded 360
prisoners, 47 guns, 40,000 lbs. powder.
11. The rebel steamers Merrimac, Jamestown and Yorktown, came
down between Newport News and Sewall’s Point, on the Chesapeake,
and captured 3 vessels.
11. Severe skirmishing in front of Yorktown, Va., by General
Jameson’s brigade. 20 of the Federals were killed or wounded.
11. Gen. Halleck assumed command of the Federal army at
Pittsburg, Tenn.
12. Gen. Milroy, at Monterey, Va., was attacked by a large force of
rebels, whom he repulsed with slight loss.
12. The Charleston and Memphis railway at Chattanooga Junction
was seized by Gen. Mitchel’s forces, and 2,000 rebels and much
property were captured.
12. 4,000 men on five transports, accompanied by the gunboats
Lexington and Tyler, left Pittsburg Landing, Tenn., and proceeded up
the Tennessee river to Eastport, Miss., where they landed, and
destroyed two bridges on the Ohio and Mobile railway, intercepting
the rebel communication with Alabama. A body of Confederate
cavalry were met on their return, who were routed, and four killed.
14. The U. S. forces were withdrawn from Jacksonville, Fla., and
the rebels soon after returning the loyal inhabitants suffered
severely, and many were driven away.
14. The Potomac flotilla ascended the Rappahannock river, Va.,
destroying several batteries. Three vessels were captured.
14. Com. Foote’s mortar boats opened fire on Fort Wright, on the
Mississippi.
15. M. Mercier, French Minister at Washington, paid an official
visit to the rebel authorities at Richmond.
15. Ex-Sec. of War Cameron was arrested at Philadelphia, Pa., on
the suit of Pierce Butler, for alleged illegal arrest.
16. Engagement at Lee’s Mill, near Yorktown, Va. Federal loss, 32
killed and 100 wounded. Rebels, 25 killed, and 75 w.
17. Mount Jackson, in Shenandoah Co., Va., was occupied by Gen.
Williams’ troops, who captured 50 of Ashby’s rebel cavalry.
17. A large boat was swamped at Castleman’s Ferry, on the
Shenandoah river, Va., by which between 40 and 50 of the 75th
Penn. were drowned, among them Adj. Teatman, Capts. Wilson and
Ward.
17. New Market, Va., occupied by Bank’s army, and Fredericksburg
by McDowell’s.
17. Bombardment of Fort Wright, on the Mississippi, by the
national flotilla.
17–24. Bombardment of Fort Jackson and St. Philip, on the
Mississippi.
20. Battle of Camden or South Mills, N. C. Gen. Reno’s forces
drove the rebels from their batteries and entrenchments. Federal loss
in killed and wounded, 90.
22. Rebel steamer J. Robb was captured on the Tenn. river by
gunboat Tyler.
24. Yorktown, Va., was shelled by the Federal gunboats.
24. Federal fleet passed Forts Jackson and St. Philip, destroying 13
rebel gunboats, the ram Manassas, and 3 transports.
25. New Orleans captured. Rebel batteries on both sides of the
river destroyed.
25. Maj.-Gen. C. F. Smith died at Savannah, Tenn.
26. Rebel schooner Arctic was captured by U. S. steamer
Flambeau.
26. Rebel schooner Belle was captured by U. S. steamer Uncas.
26. Skirmish at Neosho, Mo., between 1st Missouri volunteers,
under Major Hubbard, and rebels and Indians under Cols. Coffee
and Sternwright. Rebels defeated.
26. An advance lunette of the rebels at Yorktown was carried by
the 1st Mass.
26. Capture of Fort Macon, N. C., with its garrison of 450 men
under Col. White, after a bombardment of 11 hours. Rebel loss, 7
killed, 18 wounded. Federal loss, 1 killed, 3 wounded.
28. Forts St. Philip and Jackson, La., surrendered; Forts
Livingston and Pike abandoned, and the rebel iron battery Louisiana
blown up.
30. Skirmish of Gen. Mitchel’s forces with the rebels near
Bridgeport, Ala.
May 2. The U. S. steamer Brooklyn and several gunboats, left New
Orleans, ascending the Mississippi, to open the river and connect
with Commodore Davis’ fleet.
3. A reconnoissance in force under Gen. Paine from Pope’s division
encountered rebel cavalry pickets near Farmington, Miss., in which 8
of the latter were killed.
4. Gen. Stoneman’s advance of McClellan’s army encountered a
rebel force near Williamsburg, Va., seven of whom were killed and 25
captured. 2 Feds. killed, 20 w.
5. Battle of Williamsburg, Va. Gen. Kearney’s and Hooker’s
divisions engaged the rebel army under Gen. Longstreet from dawn
till dark, when the Federals were reinforced and rebels defeated. Fed.
loss 2,073 in killed and wounded, and 623 prisoners. Reb. loss
heavier, 500 prisoners.
6. Skirmish near Harrisonburg, Va., by Federal troops under
Major Vought.
7. Westpoint, Va. Gen. Franklin’s division of McClellan’s army
having been conveyed by transports to the head of York river,
effected a landing, where he was attacked by a force of rebels, and
with the aid of gunboats defeated the enemy.

Textbook Ebook Rare Earths Industry Technological Economic and Environmental Implications 1St Edition Leal Filho Walter All Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Textbook Ebook Rare Earths Industry Technological Economic and Environmental Implications 1St Edition Leal Filho Walter All Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rare earths industry : technological,

economic, and environmental

Ismar Borges De Lima

Walter Leal Filho

AMSTERDAM • BOSTON • HEIDELBERG • LONDON • NEW YORK • OXFORD

For information on all Elsevier publications

1. CRITICAL RARE EARTHS

1.1 WHAT REEs ARE

1.2 CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL PROPERTIES

2. THE CRITICALITY ISSUE

3. OCCURRENCES, MINING, AND PRODUCTION

3.2 MINING AND PRODUCTION

3.2.2 Global Production and Reserves

3.2.4 Major Mines

Table 1 List of (Selected) REE Applications

Nd · Nd Fe B permanent magnets Tm · X-ray intensifying screens

You might also like