CHAPTER II_Political and commercial geology and the world's mineral resources

COAL

BY GEORGE S. RICE AND FRANK F. GROUT

USES OF COAL

Coal is among the most important of all minerals. It furnishes power

and heat, and its distillation yields a great number of useful

materials, such as gas for lighting and fuel, explosives, ammonia,

aniline dyes, etc. Coke, which is bituminous coal with the more

volatile constituents removed by distillation, is used for smelting

metallic ores; and thus the contiguity of fields of high-grade coking

coal and of iron ore determined the location of the centers of steel

industry, which are the very main-springs of our modern machine-made

civilization. Near such coal districts, other manufactures of all kinds

naturally developed, the coal being cheaply available for power and

constituting practically the only source of power in regions where

cheap hydro-electric power is not available. About 66 per cent. of the

coal mined goes to the production of power, including transportation;

about 12 per cent. to coking and the by-products; and about 22 per

cent. to the heating of buildings.

Commercial coal is of three varieties: (1) anthracite (Pennsylvania

anthracite is popularly termed hard coal), and semi-anthracite

containing a high percentage of fixed carbon and a relatively low

percentage of the volatile constituents (3 to 12 per cent.); (2)

bituminous (ambiguously termed “soft coal” in the United States),

containing less fixed carbon and more volatile matter (12 to 40 per

cent.); and (3) lignite, containing a still smaller proportion of

fixed carbon and a large proportion of water. Of the bituminous coals,

some coke satisfactorily, but many do not, so that good coking coals

are highly prized. Anthracite, because it makes no smoke, is in great

demand for house heating; whereas bituminous coal is chiefly used for

power production, including locomotive and steamship firing. Lignites

as a rule are used only where the better grades of coal are not

available.

Coal was first used for heating before steam power came into use, and

iron was smelted with charcoal instead of with coke as at present.

Ship bunkering calls for the best grades of bituminous coal, low in

ash and preferably high in fixed carbon, because the use of low-grade

coals would require carrying larger amounts, leaving less space for

cargo. However, no country that has enough coal to bunker ships, need

be dependent on foreign supplies; the low grade of coal would simply

reduce efficiency and thus increase expense.

=Substitutes.=--The proportion of coal used for power, as distinct

from that used for heat and coal products, is increasing, and is now

two-thirds of the total. As a source of power there is really no

complete substitute for coal. All the great industrial nations, like

England, Germany and the United States, have developed their industries

on the basis of large coal supplies. Some countries make large use of

hydro-electric power, but for most it is an insufficient substitute.

Wood and other fuels are rarely sufficient to maintain an industry

built up on a supply of coal. Oil is being successfully substituted in

some industries, notably in shipping, but the importance of coaling

stations will no doubt persist.

CHANGES IN PRACTICE

The technique of coal mining in many districts, and the development of

heat, power and coal products are not far advanced. Wasteful methods

are used, mostly as a result of competition and lack of co-operation

and organization among producers. Economies are being advocated,

however. Labor-saving machinery has been installed in many mines. A

number of power plants have been erected near the mine mouth and the

power distributed electrically, thus eliminating freight charges on

coal. Central heating and power plants that can burn coal efficiently

will no doubt be more popular and numerous in a few years. Government

control and legislation may be expected to hasten the changes. In

Europe the technique of coal mining, except in undercutting machinery,

is further advanced than in the United States, as regards mining _all_

the coal and in supporting the surface.

Improvements in coking ovens may soon make possible the manufacture

of some sort of coke from almost any bituminous coal. While all coke

may not be satisfactory for modern blast-furnace practice, any future

lack of coke will probably be offset by the development of electric

smelting, so the seriousness of the metallurgical need is doubtful. The

proportion of by-product coke ovens, which make for cheaper coke by

providing for other marketable products, is increasing.

GEOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTION

Coals are found in the sedimentary deposits of several geological eras:

Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Tertiary. The Paleozoic era, embracing the

Carboniferous period, is by far the most important as regards quality

and availability of its coal resources; but the lower-grade and chiefly

lignitic coals of the Mesozoic and Tertiary are of great importance

locally, and there are enormous reserves that exceed in quantity the

generally higher-grade coals of the earlier periods.

The geologic distribution of coal is described in “The Coal Resources

of the World,” the most important and comprehensive compilation on coal

reserves ever made, which was undertaken by the Executive Committee of

the Twelfth International Geologic Congress, held in Canada in 1913. As

the compilation was made with the assistance of geological surveys and

mining geologists of the several countries of the world, it is cited in

this paper as authoritative on geologic distribution and resources.

The geographic distribution of the chief coal fields of the world is

shown in Plate II.

In _North America_ the most important coals in the Central and Eastern

part are of Paleozoic age, but in the Rocky Mountain region vast

quantities of coal occur in the Cretaceous (Mesozoic) strata. In the

Gulf province and in the Northern Great Plains province of the United

States, which extends into Canada, are coals of Triassic (Mesozoic) age

that are relatively unimportant at present.

In beds of the Eocene period of the Tertiary era are large deposits

of brown lignite locally converted by mountain-building forces into

bituminous and semi-bituminous coal, and also a little anthracite under

difficult mining conditions. Such locally altered beds are found in the

State of Washington, in British Columbia, and in Alaska.

The limited coal resources of _South America_, in those deposits east

of the Andes and in southern and eastern Brazil, are of Paleozoic age.

Small areas of Tertiary coals are found in southern Argentina and in

Chile.

Key to Plate II.

World’s Coal Reserves as of 1916--Coal Fields in Solid Black.

1. Countries possessing coal reserves of the first magnitude

(4,000,000 million to 1,000,000 million tons): The United States

(3,527,000 million), Canada (1,234,000 million), and China (1,500,000

million).

2. Countries possessing coal reserves of the second degree of

magnitude (500,000 million to 100,000 million): The British Isles

(189,533 million), Germany (before the war) (423,356 million),

Siberia (173,879 million), and Australia (165,572 million).

3. Countries possessing coal reserves of the third degree of

magnitude (80,000 million to 16,000 million tons): France (before

the war) (17,583 million), Alaska (16,293 million), Colombia (27,000

million), Austria-Hungary (before the war) (55,553 million), Russia

in Europe (before the war) (60,106 million), India (79,001 million),

Indo-China (20,000 million) and South Africa (56,200 million).

4. Countries possessing coal reserves of the fourth degree of

magnitude (16,000 million to 6,000 million tons): Spain (8,768

million), Japan (7,970 million), Belgium (11,000 million),

Spitzbergen (8,750 million).

5. Countries possessing coal reserves, but of inferior magnitude

(less than 4,000 million tons): Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Peru,

Ecuador, Venezuela, Greenland, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Italy,

Bulgaria, Turkey, Greece, Roumania, Asia Minor, Persia, Arabia,

various islands of Malaysia and various countries in Africa. Coal

fields shown in black--country not shaded.

[Illustration: PLATE II.--Geographical distribution of the coal

deposits of the world, and relative reserves. By F. F. Grout.]

In _Europe_ the principal coal deposits occur in the Carboniferous

system, either in the upper or the lower part. The Lower Carboniferous

is the principal series in which coals occur in Scotland, whereas the

most important coals in England and in Wales lie in Upper Carboniferous

rocks. In northern France, in Belgium, and in Westphalia, Germany, the

middle Carboniferous measures contain the most important reserves.

Mesozoic coals are found in northern Australia and in central France.

The lignites or brown coals of middle Europe are locally very important

in Germany; those of Austria are found in numerous small but thick

deposits of the Tertiary age.

[Illustration: FIG. 3.--Coal output of the chief coal-producing

countries, 1880-1916.]

The principal coal resources of _Africa_ are in the southern part

of the continent and are chiefly in deposits whose ages range from

Carboniferous to Triassic.

In _Asia_ the coal fields are not well defined. There are coal basins

of note in India and China. In China important coals are found in the

Upper Carboniferous. Coals of the Lower Carboniferous are found east

of the Urals and also in Turkestan. In Japan the Mesozoic coals are

important. Tertiary coals are widely distributed in Asia but are not

high-grade nor of importance.

It may be safely stated that geological reconnoissance has covered

the world so well that further development is not likely to disclose

coal resources of great magnitude not now known with more or less

exactitude. Estimates of resources of some regions will undoubtedly be

revised many times, especially those of reserves in the middle portion

of Africa, in South America, and China.

COAL PRODUCTION OF THE WORLD IN 1913

As the great World War began on July 31, 1914, the last normal

production figures were for 1913. The following table of the world’s

production of coal for the years 1911-1914 is from “Mineral Resources”

of the U. S. Geological Survey, the compilation being credited by Mr.

Lesher, of the Survey, to Mr. Wm. G. Gray, statistician of the American

Iron and Steel Institute, and Prof. G. A. Roush, editor of “Mineral

Industry.”

The output (1880-1916) of the chief coal-producing countries of the

world is shown graphically in Figure 3.

TABLE 4.--THE WORLD’S PRODUCTION OF COAL (IN SHORT TONS)

-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------

Country | 1911 | 1912 | 1913 | 1914

-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------

United States| 496,371,126| 534,466,580| 569,960,219| 513,525,477

Great Britain| 304,518,927| 291,666,299| 321,922,130| 297,698,617

Germany | 259,223,763| 281,979,467| 305,714,664| 270,594,952

Austria- | | | |

Hungary | 54,960,298| 56,954,579| 59,647,957|

France | 43,242,778| 45,534,448| 45,108,544|

Russia | 29,361,764| 33,775,754| 35,500,674|

Belgium | 25,411,917| 25,322,851| 25,196,869|

Japan | 19,436,536| 21,648,902| 23,988,292| 21,700,572

India | 13,494,573| 16,471,100| 18,163,856|

China | 16,534,500| 16,534,500|[5]15,432,200|

Canada | 11,323,388| 14,512,829| 15,115,089| 13,597,982

New South | | | |

Wales | 9,374,596| 10,897,134| 11,663,865| 11,644,476

Transvaal | 4,343,680| [6]8,119,288| 5,225,036|

Spain | 4,316,245| 4,559,453| 4,731,647|

Natal | 2,679,551| See note 6| 2,898,726|

New Zealand | 2,315,390| 2,438,929| 2,115,834|

Holland | 1,628,097| 1,901,902| 2,064,608|

Chile | 1,277,191| 1,470,917| 1,362,334|

Queensland | 998,556| 1,010,426| 1,162,497| 1,180,825

Mexico | [5]1,400,000| 982,396| |

Bosnia and | | | |

Herzegovina | 848,510| 940,174| 927,244|

Turkey | 799,168| 909,293| |

Italy | 614,132| 731,720| 772,802|

Victoria | 732,328| 664,334| 668,524|

Orange Free | | | |

State (Orange| | | |

River Colony)| 482,690| | 609,973|

Dutch East | | | |

Indies | [5]600,000| 622,669| 453,136|

Indo-China | [5]460,000| 471,259| |

Serbia | 335,495| 335,000| |

Sweden | 343,707| 397,149| 401,199|

Western | | | |

Australia | [5]300,000| 330,488| 351,687|

Peru | [5]300,000| 307,461| 301,970|

Formosa | 280,999| 306,941| |

Bulgaria | 270,410| 324,511| |

Rhodesia | 212,529| 216,140| 237,728|

Roumania | 266,784| | |

Cape Colony | | | |

(Cape of Good| | | |

Hope) | 89,023| See note 6| 67,481|

Korea | 138,508| | |

Tasmania | [5]70,000| 59,987| 61,648| 68,130

British | | | |

Borneo | [5]100,000| | 49,762|

Spitzbergen | 44,092| | |

Brazil | 16,535| | |

Portugal | [5]10,000| 16,938| 27,053|

Venezuela | [5]10,000| [5]12,000| 13,355|

Switzerland | 8,267| | |

Philippine | | | |

Islands | [5]2,000| 2,998| |

Unspecified | [5]1,016,947| | |

-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------

Total |1,309,565,000|1,377,000,000|1,478,000,000|1,346,000,000

| [7] | [7] | [7] |

-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------

[5] Estimated.

[6] Transvaal included Natal and Cape of Good Hope.

[7] Approximate.

TABLE 5.--RESERVES

Total coal reserves in millions of metric tons have been estimated, by

continents, as follows:

Continent Millions of tons

North America 5,073,000

Asia 1,280,000

Europe 784,000

Australia and Oceania 170,000

Africa 58,000

South America 32,000

The countries on pre-war basis having the greatest reserves are as

follows:

Country Millions of tons

United States (half lignite) 3,527,000

Canada (three-fourths lignite) 1,234,000

China 996,000 to 1,500,000

British Isles 190,000

Siberia (largely lignite) 173,000

Germany (including Upper Silesia and the Saar) 423,000

New South Wales 118,000

India 79,000

Russia including Dombrova field (Poland) 60,000

Austria (chiefly in Bohemia, Silesia and Galicia) 54,000

France 17,600

[Illustration: FIG. 4.--Coal reserves of chief producing countries,

according to “Coal Resources of the World,” in millions of metric tons.

Squares are to scale: lines showing relative production are not on same

scale as squares.]

The reserves of the principal productive coal fields are graphically

shown in Figure 4.

The distribution of the coal deposits of the world and the estimated

reserves in these deposits are shown in Plate II.

GENERAL WORLD SITUATION

The districts with coal for export have been chiefly the British Isles,

United States and Germany; there might be included also New South

Wales, British South Africa, Japan, French Indo-China, Canada, New

Zealand and Spitzbergen. China, with her large reserves, may become an

exporter in the future; or, if her industries develop, may find use for

her coal at home.

Anthracite of good grade is found in large amounts in Pennsylvania and

South Wales only. Poorer supplies are known in Germany, France, Italy,

Indo-China, and also in the states of Colorado and New Mexico.

Coking coals in large amounts are found in the eastern United States,

Germany and the United Kingdom and are coked extensively. Smaller

amounts of coke are made in France, Belgium and old Austria. Relatively

very small amounts are made in Canada, Chile, New South Wales, Japan

and Spain.

The coal reserve of a country bears no direct relation to its present

production, for the latter, which has to be developed in competition

with other countries, depends upon relative facility of transportation

and proximity of iron-ore deposits, which render steel making and other

industries economically feasible.

_Great Britain_ is particularly favored through the possession of

high-grade coal immediately adjacent to coast ports, as in the North

of England, Scotland and Wales. Hence Great Britain became a great

exporter of coal. First, coal for heating purposes traveled by sea

from Newcastle to London; next coal was carried to European ports, and

finally to all parts of the world. The possession of easily worked iron

deposits in the north of England and the discovery that iron could

be smelted with coke rapidly accelerated the development of the coal

industry in Great Britain, so that by the middle of the nineteenth

century Great Britain had a commanding lead.

No other country possesses high-grade coal in such quantity immediately

adjacent to the coast, and this fact has enabled Great Britain to

remain the great exporter. The average length of haul of export coal,

from mine to ship, is less than 20 miles. In Germany coal for ocean

export must be hauled 118 miles to 168 miles; in the United States

from 150 to 375 miles, except for Washington coals, which are within

40 miles of tidewater, but are small in quantity and of indifferent

quality.

After the war with France in 1871, when _Germany_ annexed Alsace

and Lorraine, the coal industry of the German Empire developed

with tremendous rapidity, largely through the discovery--from the

investigations of Thomas, of Great Britain--of a method of utilizing

the high-phosphorus iron ores of German and French Lorraine, and the

nearness of these iron-ore deposits to the high-grade bituminous coals

of Westphalia. The coal industry was also developed by fostering the

export trade with adjacent countries, which have small coal resources

or none, this trade nearly all going by rail.

However, the long rail haul and the correspondingly high cost of mining

have retarded the ocean export business of Germany, in spite of the

fostering care of the government. With the transfer of practically all

its iron deposits and its important Lorraine potash deposits, as well

as the ownership of its Saar coal mines, to France, and the possible

loss of its Upper Silesian coal and zinc deposits to Poland, the

balance of commercial prosperity, as well, may be handed over.

No other countries except the United States, Canada, Australia and

China have reserves for extensive export trade. In _Canada_ the coals

are mostly inland, and those near the coast, as on Vancouver Island and

in Nova Scotia, are limited in quantity and difficult to mine, so that

export business is perforce restricted.

One change that seems likely is a rapid increase in output of coal

in _China_. The resources are enormous, the reserves of the higher

classes of coal being surpassed by those of no country but the United

States. The ambitious and aggressive Japanese, with their strategic

neighboring location, have given every indication that they will take

advantage of an opportunity to develop such a resource. It may be a

question how soon Chinese coal will be developed, but great changes are

inevitable when development begins. Some of the coal fields are so near

the coast and have coals of such good quality as to permit an extensive

development of export business in the Orient.

_Australia_, particularly in Queensland and New South Wales, has coal

resources that are considerable, in comparison with the needs of the

small population. In New South Wales the coals are excellent and are

adjacent or close to harbors, so that the coal is extensively supplied

for bunkerage and export trade to the South Pacific and has become a

large factor in the ocean trade of that part of the world.

A large factor in the coal trade of the Pacific Ocean is the carrying

of coal as return cargo. This is also important in South American

trade. South Africa during the war sent considerable coal to the

western Mediterranean, but its coal cannot be a large factor in ocean

trade in normal times.

Of all the continents South America is the poorest in coal resources.

There is coal in _Brazil_ and _Chile_ and other South American

countries, but it is difficult to reach and the fields so far known

do not give promise of being able to take care of the needs of the

countries in which they occur. The total annual production of South

America is less than two million tons, mostly from Chile. It is

probable that for the next generation South America will continue to

import coal as it has in the past, to the extent of 15 million tons or

more per annum, although developments in Brazil are now promising for

that country’s future supply. For estimates of reserves, see Table 5.

=Summary.=--By way of summary, it may be said that the United States

leads the world in coal resources; moreover, its resources are most

immediately available, because of their shallow depth and general

undisturbed (geologic) condition and their accessibility through

railway systems. This is particularly true in the Appalachian region,

which contains by far the best coal, is the nearest to the coast, and

hence is the most available for ocean trade. On the other hand, the

average haul to export points, as already noted, is far greater than

that of Great Britain and greater than that of Westphalia; but to

offset this the coal has been and can be mined more cheaply than in

either Westphalia or Great Britain. The resources of Upper Silesia are

large, and the coal is easily mined, but the output will all be needed

for central Europe. As regards both quality and quantity, Pennsylvania

anthracite is unique; nevertheless, the home needs will continue to

be a brake on extensive exports. United States steam and coking coals

available for shipment average a little poorer than the corresponding

coals of Great Britain, but are superior to the German coals.

The total resources of Great Britain, possible, actual, and probable,

are only 190,000 million tons, as contrasted with 423,000 million tons

in the old German Empire and 3,838,000 million tons in the United

States.

=Probable Future Production.=--The possible depletion of coal resources

is of course important in considering the future, but it can be safely

stated that in none of the principal fields now being mined are the

resources so depleted that the output therefrom will be reduced for

another generation at least.

Of the great coal-producing countries, Great Britain, with its

increasing rate of production, most nearly approaches the point of

ultimate depletion, but that point has been variously placed at one

hundred to several hundred years in the future, much depending upon

whether with better methods of use the output will continue to increase

at the same rate as in the past. Meantime, certain areas in Great

Britain with shallower coal beds will be depleted much sooner and the

remaining coal will become more and more difficult to get, because of

the increasing depth of mining, which in turn will cause a continually

increasing cost.

Although the exhaustion of coal is a distant prospect, there are clear

signs of the approaching exhaustion of certain grades of coal. It has

been estimated that the output of American anthracite will seriously

decline in 60 to 100 years. Probably this will result in a change in

practice, the use of coke, and other methods of house heating. If the

rate of production continues to increase, high-grade American steam

coal, New River and similar grades, will probably be exhausted in a

little over 150 years. American coking coal of the best Connellsville

quality is of equally short duration. British coal of similar high

grade may last longer than American, as the production rate is less

rapid, even though the total American coal should last much longer than

the British.

POLITICAL CONTROL

In several countries state ownership of coal mines is established;

as, for example, in parts of Prussia, Australia, Chile and Bulgaria.

In others the undeveloped coal lands are still largely owned by the

government, as in Alaska and the western United States. In some

countries the government retains control of all mineral rights, simply

leasing the property and granting a mining concession. Many governments

have a department or administration of mines. In every country, of

course, in an emergency, the sovereign state would exercise control of

coal resources as fully as was necessary. Where the state owns mines,

and favors organization, as in Germany, the more drastic regulation of

war time is easily effected. It is quite possible that coal may in time

be generally considered a public utility.

In England a movement toward nationalization of mines, with miners as

well as the government having a hand in the control, seems to be making

progress.

England’s colonies excel all others in extent of coal resources.

There is coal in Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, South Africa,

Rhodesia, Newfoundland, South Nigeria and British North Borneo--the

total being many times greater than that in the British Isles. The

colonies and possessions of France, Denmark, Portugal, United States

and Japan have relatively small amounts of coal.

Coal resources, along with other raw materials, have been influenced by

some trade treaties. However, no permanent advantage in commerce has

been secured to any nation by a trade treaty. Nearly all such treaties

are made for short periods and renewed. If not satisfactory to one

party they are soon corrected. Various informal or tacit agreements

might be mentioned. When shipping was scarce during the war, England

and the United States divided the coal business of South America

according to the requirements of ship economy. Germany made agreements

to send coal to Austria-Hungary and Switzerland during the period of

the war. England had agreements with France, Spain, Portugal and Italy,

these agreements changing with conditions, about supplies of English

coal.

COMMERCIAL CONTROL

Although the ownership of mines in most countries is nominally open to

citizens and aliens alike, exceptions and restrictions tend to keep

the control in the hands of citizens. For example, it is impossible

for foreigners to control any mining company in Japan. Concessions

in Holland and the Dutch colonies are limited to Dutch subjects and

in Bolivia to Bolivian citizens. The legislation suggested since the

outbreak of the World War may develop a similar condition in the

possessions of Great Britain and those of her allies.

In peace the relations of two countries may be largely determined by

the ownership of property; owners of property in a foreign country may

strongly influence the policy of the two governments toward each other.

In emergencies, the political and the commercial control are put to the

test, and there results either a deadlock or the victory of one over

the other.

An important commercial relation exercising political influence is

the incorporation of companies under the laws of different countries.

Mining companies in China, like the Kailan Mining Administration,

organize at Hong Kong to obtain British protection and are thus subject

to British control, in spite of the fact that Belgian money finances

the company. Some companies organized in Japan may also own Chinese

coal mines.

As relatively few regions of the world have coal in excess of their

own needs, the larger number are dependent on imports. If a country

with coal controls also steamship lines, it may completely control the

coal situation in the importing country. England, with about half the

total world’s shipping and a good supply of seaport coal, has been in a

position to dominate coal exports, even to handling the excess American

coal. During the last three or four years the scarcity of shipping

has given increased importance to American and Japanese shipping, but

the English still exert a strong influence. Their docks and storage

facilities are the best, and their ships are still numerous.

Railroad shipping rights over the National Lines in _Mexico_ give a

certain amount of control over the coal industry. The National Lines

are state owned and have a special agreement giving trackage rights to

two companies, the American Smelting and Refining Co., and the Peñoles

Company, of German ownership. Since the Mexican railway service has

been disturbed, the German company has been operating with cars and

engines of its own. It has many coke ovens and large coal reserves,

and has been the chief competitor of the American company in Mexican

metallurgy.

No patent is likely to limit coal industries, except as regards the

by-products of coke. Before the war, coal-tar products were largely

developed by Germans, who patented their processes in many countries,

but offered no such protection to foreign inventions by patents in

Germany. They limited production chiefly to their German plants, and

exported about $50,000,000 worth a year.

During the war, these patents in the United States were taken over by

the Alien Property Custodian, and the American industries that sprung

up in consequence may be permanently protected. Other allied countries

took the same steps to free themselves from German control, which has

retarded the development of the by-product coke industry in non-German

countries.

In _Germany_ the large mining companies generally own the coal rights.

The only government that has mined coal on a commercial scale and

for commercial purposes is Germany, and even there the government

production covered only a small part of the total output of the German

Empire. Mines of the Saar coal field and a group of mines in the Upper

Silesian field owned by the Prussian government have been the only

extensive state-operated mines of the world, and now, under the terms

of the Treaty of Peace, the ownership of the Saar mines will pass to

France. (The details are given on p. 39).

On the other hand, the government exercised a quiet but real control

over the whole German coal industry. Through its ownership of the

Koenigen Louise mines it acted as a member of the Upper Silesian coal

syndicate. Formerly, through its ownership of the Saar mines, it was

also a member of the Westphalian coal syndicate, but whether a member

or not it practically approved the syndicate operations and the fixing

of prices in advance; also, it co-operated with the syndicate in

hauling the latter’s coal over state-owned railway systems. In certain

undeveloped coal fields in Germany, the northern extension of the

Westphalian field, the Prussian government retains most of the coal

rights.

The Rhenish Westphalian coal syndicate is a classic example of a great

interlocking trade combination. Capitalized at $571,000, it covered an

enormous capitalization of individual members. The mines have votes in

proportion to production, which in turn is limited for certain periods.

Prices are fixed and coal is marketed for the syndicate as a unit, but

other affairs are left to the companies. The syndicate as a whole is

a member of a transporting and exporting combine, and disposes of its

product through a combine of coal dealers. The several minor combines

interlock and are practically merged in a larger organization, the

Kohlen Kontor. Thus the combination had exceptional power to study

the various problems of the industry, and became very powerful. It

maintains a research department and an explosion testing gallery near

Dortmund. In several countries German companies through the control of

advertising contracts have been able to influence the editorial policy

of the leading newspapers, even during the war. Over half of the German

coal mined before and during the war was syndicate coal. All of the

600 other German cartels have not been as moderate in their action and

regulations as the coal syndicate. When the coal syndicate, however,

at one time, found it could not supply its German market with coal, it

is reported to have bought inferior British coal for its customers,

so that they would not themselves get good British coal and refuse to

return to the German supply.

Efforts were made by the cartel to absorb and control foreign coal

trade, where political and financial reasons served to render this

advisable, and therefore these efforts were out of all proportion to

the intrinsic value of the trade. When it was planned to capture such

a trade, the German-invented “dumping” system was used, coal being

sold cheaper abroad than it could be sold or produced at home, the

difference being met by export bonuses. This German dumping became so

serious in some countries, as Canada, New Zealand and South Africa,

that special import duties were imposed to counteract it. When

desirable, the syndicate purchased collieries abroad, including even a

South Yorkshire plant in England, the Heraclea collieries, in Turkey,

and many mines in Australia.

In _Great Britain_ is a powerful coal combine, the Cambria, closely

allied with great shipping concerns. An important trade asset in this

organization, like that in the German cartel, is a banking connection

by which the combine can offer long-term credit.

Coal syndicates are mentioned in Belgium. Some sort of central

organization interested in coal is known in Italy, Russia,

Austria-Hungary, Sweden, Greece, Argentina, Chile, and Ecuador.

THE SITUATION IN FRANCE, ENGLAND, AND THE UNITED STATES

_France_ has a modified form of ownership of coal resources: this was

vested formerly in the Crown and now in the Republic. The government

gives concessions for mining the mineral and charges a royalty. The

mineral is not considered to be owned by the surface owner or by

the original surface owner, as is the case in all other important

countries. The concessions granted are liberal and for large areas.

The royalty or rental is small and is now paid on the basis of so much

per superficial unit of area (hectare) in the concession, but the

chief returns received by the public are through a percentage of the

net earnings, that is, earnings available for dividends. Under the

conditions prevailing in France the system seems eminently fair, and

the undertakings have been profitable both to the operators and to the

country. The books of the company are open to inspection by government

officials, and the annual reports are published in detail. The system

virtually makes the government a partner in the business.

In _Great Britain_ most of the coal ownership is vested in entailed

estates, and the royalties are a shilling a ton and upwards.

Both private and government ownership exist in the _United States_.

Throughout the greater part of the country the large operating

companies own the coal rights, although in the anthracite district of

Pennsylvania the fortunate owners of the surface, or their assigns,

receive large royalties, 25 to 50 cents a ton. In the Middle West most

of the operators have bought the coal rights from the surface owners.

When leased, the royalty is relatively small, 2 to 6¹⁄₄ cents a ton.

Operators in the Rocky Mountains generally own the coal they mine.

The government has sold the coal rights, but the state school lands

of Colorado and Wyoming have generally been leased at royalties of

about 10 cents a ton. In Oklahoma the Five Civilized Tribes have until

recently, under government control, leased their lands and coal rights

at about 10 cents per ton, but these rights are now being sold.

In the State of Washington a considerable amount of the bituminous coal

district now opened is owned by the Northern Pacific Railway, which

secured these lands as grants when the railroad was constructed. The

royalty is about 15 to 25 cents a ton.

In Alaska in the Matanuska and Bering River bituminous fields, and

in the Nenana lignite field, the government has offered the coal

for leasing purposes at 2 cents a ton for the first period, under

restrictions providing for conservation of coal and reasonable prices

to consumers. Some units have been taken up in the Matanuska and Bering

River fields, but, as the measures are badly contorted and the coal

beds difficult to trace, progress has been slow and production has

scarcely begun. Temporarily, the Alaskan Railway Commission is working

some mines at Chickaloon and Eska Creek, to obtain a supply of coal

pending the development of other mines by lessees. Congress, in opening

the coal lands in the Matanuska and Bering River fields for leasing,

has reserved tracts of not exceeding 7,680 acres and 5,120 acres

respectively for the use of the Navy.

The United States still owns large areas of coal and lignite lands in

the western states. Most of these lands are remote from railroads and

difficult of access, but they contain enormous reserves. At present,

outside of Alaska, only one mine, the Gebo mine, Gebo, Wyoming, is

leased by the government, but extension of a leasing system similar to

that of Alaska has been recently effected.

In the United States the anthracite industry is well organized, and its

railroad connections make it notably efficient and powerful. Bituminous

coal, on the other hand, is so widely distributed on both public and

private lands that no private organization has attempted to control

the industry. Such control has always been opposed by Congress and the

general public.

Except during the war, neither Great Britain nor the United States has

attempted any control over commercial mining and the sale of coal.

Each country created a fuel administration, and the coal was shipped

under government instructions and paid for at prices fixed by the

fuel administration. In the United States this government control has

practically disappeared with the war, but in England the Coal Control

has so far been continued, and the tendency is for the government to

retain for the present a strong guiding hand on the various “key”

industries. Certainly, in the final analysis, coal mining is a public

utility and should be supervised and adjusted by the government

accordingly, allowing free latitude for private initiative.

Of the important coal-producing countries, only the German Empire,

more or less openly, has fostered in peace times the coal industry and

to some extent controlled it. In France there was only an indirect

control, through the control by the government of the concessions and

taxation of revenues and through tacit knowledge of the operations

of the French coal syndicate, which ostensibly at least obtains and

disseminates information and conducts mine safety investigations. In

the United States, Great Britain, and other countries free competition

has been permitted. Free competition does not seem serious in countries

like France, where the supply of coal is limited, but it has had more

or less serious financial effects where the supply of coal has been

very large. In Germany before the formation of the syndicates the coal

mining industry had periods of overproduction and serious financial

depression; and at other, rarer, periods there was great prosperity.

In Great Britain there have been similar times of depression and

prosperity, but generally the business has been profitable.

In the United States, except in the anthracite district, where for

more than twenty years the operations have been in the hands of

comparatively few companies, depression and prosperity have alternated

rapidly. The statistics obtained by the census show that the average

profits of the bituminous industry prior to 1917 were smaller than

those of any other great industry, and this has had an unfortunate

effect on the best development of the coal resources. The companies

generally have had little or no surplus to develop properly in the

lean years; hence they have mined only the best or thickest coal, and

in short periods of great prosperity many mines not directly owned by

the railroads and steel companies have been worked so as to lead to

“squeezes” and great loss of coal. Moreover, these conditions have

also been unfortunate for labor; in times of prosperity too many new

mines were opened, because of the tremendous and easily accessible

resources, and in times of depression the number of days the miners

worked has been so reduced that their monthly or yearly earnings have

been low enough to make their living a hard one. The average number of

days worked per year from 1901 to 1915 was 213. Some system of limited

control of trade combinations by the government would appear to be

highly advantageous for both the operators and the miners, and should

insure a steady supply of coal to the consumers and steady prices with

reasonable profits.

As regards trade relations between the United States and other

countries concerning fuel supplies, except for a possible agreement on

non-subsidy of the coal-carrying shipping, any attempt at a general

agreement on so vital a necessity as coal seems unwise, except for

non-duplication of elaborate coal storage and rehandling plants in

ports requiring small tonnages, and preventing ruinous competition

by systematic “dumping” of surplus coal to drive a competitor out of

business.

Of all the continents, South America has the smallest coal resources.

Although there is coal in _Brazil_ and _Chile_ and other South American

countries, it is difficult to reach, and the fields so far known do not

give promise of being able to take care of the needs of the countries

in which they occur.

=The Coal Situation as Affected by the War.=--Immediately after the

opening of the war in Europe, July 31, 1914, the German military forces

attacked and advanced in the east through Russian Poland, promptly

securing the important Dombrova field, which is an extension of the

Upper Silesian coal fields. The German forces also advanced in the west

through the Belgian coal fields and thence through the extension of

these fields in northern France, at the same time seizing the important

Briey iron-ore deposits north of Verdun.

The economic effect of these advances was of enormous importance in

securing all the productive coal mines of Belgium, the most productive

coal mines of Russia, and most of the coal fields of northern France.

The French coal and iron mines seized produced one-half of the coal

output of France (20 million tons out of 40 million tons), and 95 per

cent. (20 million tons) of the output of iron ore. Necessarily under

these conditions France had to rely upon England and the United States

to meet the military and economic need for iron, leaning chiefly upon

Great Britain for the necessary supply of coal. Great Britain during

the war continued to supply coal to Italy; also to Spain and other

neutral nations.

The armistice ended Germany’s occupation of the coal fields of Belgium

and northern France. On the other hand, the French took charge of the

important Saar coal field, and the Allies occupied German territory

reaching to the Rhine and beyond the Rhine at certain bridgeheads, this

occupation including the supervision of the mines in the coal and brown

lignite basins near Aix-la-Chapelle and Cologne and the western margin

of the Westphalian basin on the left bank of the Rhine.

The treaty of peace gives to the French the important iron resources

of former German Lorraine, which together with imports from French

Lorraine were the chief sources of iron ore for German iron works, and

the ownership of the Saar coal mines.

The terms under which the Saar mines are transferred, and the future

government of the district, are indicated in the following extracts

from the treaty:

“As compensation for the destruction of the coal mines in the north

of France, and as part payment towards the total reparation due from

Germany for the damages resulting from the war, Germany cedes to France

in full and absolute possession, with exclusive rights of exploitation,

unencumbered and free from all debts and charges of any kind, the coal

mines situated in the Saar basin.”

This is exclusive of that part of the Saar basin in Lorraine which

belonged to France prior to 1870, and which now reverts to France with

some minor rectifications of boundary. The treaty further specifies,

“all the deposits of coal situated within the Saar basin will become

the complete and absolute property of the French state. * * * The right

of ownership of the French state will apply not only to the deposits

which are free and for which concessions have not yet been granted, but

also to the deposits for which concessions have already been granted,

whoever may be the present proprietors, irrespective of whether they

belong to the Prussian state, to the Bavarian state, to other states or

bodies, to companies or to individuals. * * * The value of the property

thus ceded to the French state will be determined by the Reparation

Commission. * * * This value shall be credited to Germany in part

payment of the amount due for reparation. It will be for Germany to

indemnify the proprietors or parties concerned, whoever they may be.”

As concerns the government of the territory of the Saar, at the

termination of a period of fifteen years, the population will be called

upon to indicate their desires, and then, “The League of Nations

shall decide on the sovereignty under which the territory is to be

placed, taking into account the wishes of the inhabitants as expressed

by the voting.” In the meantime, the territory will be governed by

a commission of five members chosen by the Council of the League of

Nations.

In addition to turning over the ownership of the mines and minerals in

the Saar basin, Germany accords the following options for the delivery

of coal to the undermentioned signatories of the present treaty:

“Germany undertakes to deliver to France seven million tons of coal

per year for ten years (it is understood that this is to provide fuel

for the Alsace Lorraine territory ceded back to France). In addition,

Germany undertakes to deliver to France annually for a period not

exceeding ten years, an amount of coal equal to the difference

between the annual production before the war of the coal mines of

the Nord and Pas de Calais, destroyed as a result of the war, and

the production of the mines of the same area during the years in

question; such delivery not to exceed twenty million tons in any one

year of the first five years, and eight million tons in any one year

of the succeeding five years. It is understood that due diligence

will be exercised in the restoration of the destroyed mines in the

Nord and the Pas de Calais.”

Besides furnishing France with coal, “Germany undertakes to deliver

to Belgium eight million tons of coal annually for ten years;” and

to Italy from four and one-half to eight and one-half million tons

annually; and also to Luxemburg, “a quantity of coal equal to the

pre-war annual consumption of German coal in Luxemburg.”

The prices to be paid for coal under these options shall be as follows:

“(_a_) For overland delivery, including delivery by barge, the German

pithead price to German nationals, plus the freight to French,

Belgian, Italian or Luxemburg frontiers, provided that the pithead

price does not exceed the pithead price of British coal for export.

In the case of Belgian bunker coal, the price shall not exceed the

Dutch bunker price. Railroad and barge tariffs shall not be higher

than the lowest similar rates paid in Germany.

“(_b_) For sea delivery, the German export price f.o.b. German ports,

or the British export price f.o.b. British ports, whichever may be

lower.

“The allied and associated governments interested may demand the

delivery, in place of coal, of metallurgical coke in the proportion

of 3 tons of coke to 4 tons of coal.”

Germany undertakes to deliver to France during each of the three years

following the coming into force of this treaty,

Benzol 35,000 tons

Coal tar 50,000 tons

Sulphate of ammonia 30,000 tons

The price paid for coke and for the articles referred to shall be the

same as the price paid by German nationals under the same conditions of

shipment.

The ownership of the Saar mines is a most welcome addition to the coal

resources of France; and the Saar basin, as it is capable of further

development, may in the future make France more nearly self-sustaining

as regards coal production.

The requirement of furnishing coal to France during the rehabilitation

of the French mines wrecked by the Germans is a most equitable

arrangement. Germany at first, owing to the drop in the output of the

Westphalian fields, claimed not to be able to furnish coal, but this

situation will no doubt right itself in time, especially as France

holds the whip hand through control of the iron ores necessary for the

great iron and steel plants of the Rhine district. In the meantime it

is hoped Great Britain, with the assistance of the United States, will

be able to supply the deficiency in the coal requirements.

The problems connected with the Russian coal fields are complicated,

but at least the Dombrova coal field would seem to be in the hands of

the new Poland, and this carries coal resources estimated at 2,525

million tons, with an output before the war probably exceeding 7

million metric tons per annum.

According to the terms of the peace treaty, a plebiscite will determine

the political control of the Upper Silesian coal fields.

=Probable Changes in Coal Trade.=--In the ocean coal trade of the world

the greatest change likely is that the United States will more largely

supply South America, its coal being substituted for that of Great

Britain. The ocean distance is markedly in favor of the United States,

particularly on the west coast of South America by vessels passing

through the Canal. With the increased shipping facilities of the United

States, there is every reason to believe exports of coal to South

America will be equally shared between the United States and Great

Britain.

At the present time, it is evident that the British coal-mining

industry is in a bad way, and publicists are expressing serious alarm

at the possible loss of the greater part of the export trade and the

curtailment of home industries through a great decrease in production

accompanied by a rapid increase in cost.

In 1913 Great Britain produced 287,000,000 long tons, and exported

77,000,000 long tons of coal. During the war, owing to the large

number of miners entering the military service, the output greatly

declined, but was expected to recover rapidly with the signing of the

armistice and the return of the miners. But labor unrest, resulting in

strikes and absenteeism, kept the output down, and on July 16, 1919,

the so-called Sankey award went into effect. This award shortened

the miners’ working day from eight to seven hours, exclusive of the

time taken in hoisting and lowering, but inclusive of the time taken

in reaching the working place. Rates were raised so that the miner

received more in a day with the seven-hour day than formerly with

the eight-hour day, and the Controller raised the price of coal six

shillings a ton to offset the increased cost.

Sir Richard Redland, chief inspector of mines, predicted that the

output for 1919 would be 230,000,000 tons, and for 1920, 217,000,000

tons, or a reduction of 70,000,000 tons from the output of 1913.

Presumably, in the course of time, by using additional shifts, Great

Britain may recover its former output, though manifestly at greatly

increased cost; so that unless the cost in the United States goes up

correspondingly, there is every probability that this country will be

able to compete successfully in export business, not only in South

America, but also in Mediterranean ports.

At the present time, demands for coal are reaching the United States

not only from those parts of the world, but also from Scandinavia,

Switzerland, Denmark, and The Netherlands. On account of nearness,

however, Great Britain should be able to take care of the fuel

requirements of northern Europe.

In the Pacific, it is not probable that either the State of Washington

or the Territory of Alaska will produce coal in such quantity and at

such a price that the output can be a general factor in the Pacific

Coast trade. The demands of Alaska, Washington, and adjoining states

will absorb the local production; and California will continue to

import in ballast more or less coal from Vancouver Island, British

Columbia, China, Japan, New Zealand, and Australia.

The immediate changes in Asia are more likely to be in the development

of mines in the interior of China and in India to supply domestic

needs rather than extensive exports, although, as before stated, it is

possible that China will gradually get into the Pacific Coast markets.

POSITION OF LEADING COMMERCIAL NATIONS

=United States.=--The United States has the best coal reserve of

any country--about 3,527,000 million out of a total world reserve

of 7,900,000 million tons--and good reserves of each of the several

classes of coal. For many years there will be no danger of a shortage

except for anthracite, good coking coal and the highest grades of steam

coal, which are now actively mined. About 600,000,000 tons a year, or

nearly 40 per cent. of the annual output of the world, is mined in the

United States.

In contrast with the reserves and production, the exports in 1913 were

only about 12 per cent. of the exports of coal from all countries;

and a large part of the American exports goes to Canada by rail. Of

sea-borne coal, the United States sent out only 4 per cent. This

small proportion of international trade is due to the distance of our

coal from seaports, the lack of organization and related shipping

organizations; and, further, to the relative independence of the United

States, which, from most countries, requires only a small amount of

import as a return cargo for coal-carrying ships. We use our coal at

home, but the advantage of exporting a considerable quantity of coal

for its effects on increasing trade relationships with other countries

is now becoming evident.

Correlated with the large supply and small export of coal is the

remarkable development of home industries using our own coal. From the

curves of production (shown in Figure 3) it seems that within a century

the United States will surpass all Europe in coal production. As our

industries have kept pace with coal production, our consumption of coal

is indicated roughly by the production curve. Hence it seems that the

United States is likely to be a center of manufacturing and wealth; and

with this will come an equally certain continual increase in population

and power.

The second great world supply of coal is likely to be that of China.

To be sure, European production is large, but it will be divided among

several powers. The main part of the world’s power and industry for

the next century is so definitely located by the coal deposits (and

by associated iron in most cases) that the part the United States

should take in the world’s program is clear. Every precaution should be

observed to have the Chinese resources controlled by powers that will

not abuse them to make the world “unsafe for democracy.”

The war opened several foreign markets, especially in South America, to

United States coal. Some of these markets may be permanent, but Welsh

coal is still likely to dominate sea-borne trade. The United States

has coaling stations as far away as Manila and the Samoan Islands, but

little coal reaches them from this country. American coal supplies our

government coaling stations in Alaska; Hawaii; our home ports, both

Atlantic and Pacific; Cuba; Porto Rico; Nicaraguan ports; Panama Canal

ports; Mazatlan, Mexico; and some South American ports. No attempt

seems to have been made to establish strategic ports around the world,

such as may be needed if the present increase in American shipping is

to be maintained under the American flag.

No foreign control has been influential in mining or handling coal

in the United States. The ownership of coal mines by aliens has been

possible, but apparently has not become important.

American coal resources are so great that no single organization,

foreign or domestic, has been able to dominate the situation. The

lack of a strong trade combination made it possible (in 1916) for

a combination of British shippers to fix the price of bunker coal

in Atlantic ports, so that the mines got even less for it than for

industrial coal. This was the result of competitive bids, and the lack

of organization here, but it is expected that organization will develop

now.

Since the war began the development of industries based on coal tar has

been remarkable. There are signs, however, of an unhealthy competition

in this country, and the government should be careful that internal

squabbles do not open the door for German control again.

=England.=--The British Isles have only one-fortieth of the total

world’s supply of coal, but this is of better than average quality.

High-grade steam coal is abundant and there is a fair supply of coking

coal. The annual production, 300 million tons, is about one-fifth the

world’s production, and is second only to that of the United States.

England before the war exported about one-fourth of the production,

overseas exports from England being six times as much as from any other

country in the world. Coal has constituted about three-fourths of all

English exports. The coal mines are near seaports, and ocean freight

rates are low, because the demand for imports gives return cargoes to

England from all parts of the world. There are large supplies of coal

also in the colonies, especially India, Australia and South Africa.

The coal business and shipping of Great Britain grew up together. About

one-fourth of the coal shipped goes for bunkering. In 1916 England

owned 40 per cent. of the world’s shipping and exported nearly 70 per

cent. of the world’s sea-borne coal. The maintenance of the shipping

requires bunkering ports all around the world. Coal from Wales and

British colonies was sufficient to supply them all, and they constitute

by far the most strategic system that any country possesses.

England, Gibraltar, Greece, Malta, Suez, Port Said, Aden, Maskat,

Colombo, Singapore, Bombay, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Sydney, Fiji Islands,

Vancouver, Valparaiso, St. Lucia, Jamaica, Halifax, Newfoundland, St.

Helena, Bermuda, Cape Town and Durban, and others encircle the globe.

France, Japan, Holland and the United States have each a few stations,

but no such comprehensive system. The German proposals of terms of

peace (during the war) recognized the importance of these stations by

specifying that England should give up Aden, Malta and similar ports.

Trade arrangements between Great Britain and other countries have been

such as to grant “most favored nation” treatment to both parties, even

with Germany, where no formal treaty was in force. The free-trade

policy of England is well established, and on that basis England’s

commercial growth has been very great. Studies since the war began

show that Germany took advantage of the freedom in British countries

and the protection at home. For example, German capital controlled

some collieries in South Yorkshire, through Mr. Stinnes, one of the

largest components of the German Kohlen Kontor. This organization had

branches in Newcastle, Cardiff, Glasgow, Hull, and many foreign ports.

The French also had purchased an English colliery before the war, the

Stonehall colliery, at Lydden, near Dover.

The Australian colonies and probably others found that German

financiers owned and controlled most of the mines when war broke out.

It took some time to destroy this influence. Early in the war, British

sentiment seemed to call for action against all such German commercial

aggression, and at an Allied Economic Conference at Paris in June,

1916, plans were suggested for protection by tariff and exclusion of

alien ownership in allied countries. More recently it seems that the

British plan is to keep British certain key industries at all hazards

and at any expense, but not to abandon free trade or in any way

decrease the amount of trading done.

Commercial control of the Welsh steam-coal export trade is largely

in the hands of the Cambria Coal Combine, but in the trade there are

several other large combinations. The anthracite industry of England is

not as well organized as that of America.

Commercial control of coal exported from Wales is largely in the hands

of the large combinations of British shippers, in agreement with the

Cambria. Even when the war interfered with shipping, it is estimated

that two-thirds of the South American coal trade was in British control.

Many instances of British financial control of coal in countries other

than British colonies have not been noted. British capital is invested

in a few mines in Siberia and there are extensive holdings in China.

=Germany.=--The reserves of coal in Germany before the war were greater

than those in England, counting possible reserves, and of fair quality.

Germany formerly controlled 70 per cent. of the coal on the Continent.

Austrian coal was controlled, and the coal of Spitzbergen has been

claimed, though now in British and Norwegian control.

Although the most important deposits of coking coal of the Continent

are in Westphalia, those of Belgium and northern France are very

important to a general control of the coal situation. It cannot be

assumed that these important coal fields were seized by the Germans

for other reasons, or that the Germans included coal and iron by

accident. In 1911 the Rhenish Westphalian _Zeitung_ advised that French

Lorraine and Luxemburg should be dominated as thoroughly as Westphalia

was. In 1915 the six greatest associations of business men in Germany

petitioned the Chancellor to consider the control of the coal (and

iron) of northern France as a military as well as economic necessity.

The annual production of coal in Germany before the war was about

one-fifth of the world’s total output, closely approaching the

production of Great Britain. In the first years of the war the coal

output declined somewhat. In coal exports, Germany has been second only

to the British Isles, but no country exports by sea one-sixth as much

as Great Britain. Before the war Germany had established some fourteen

“Kohlen depots” abroad and had a large amount of shipping. These

bunkering ports were taken by the Allies.

An example of German industrial penetration is furnished by the case

of Kiau Chau, China. In 1899 the Shantung Eisenbahn Gesellschaft was

formed in Berlin with headquarters at Tsingtao. It acquired exclusive

rights for 5 years to search for minerals in a zone 10 miles each

side of the railway and to acquire claims. Chinese mines were not to

be allowed to adopt modern methods and compete, unless they bought

German material and employed German men. The mines that were developed

produced good steamship coal and good enough coke, so that a blast

furnace was planned. The Germans lost their control when war broke out,

and these rights have passed, under the terms of the peace treaty, to

Japan. German capital that had been invested some years ago in the

Chung Hsing Coal Co. was bought out in 1908.

=France.=--Before the war France was fifth in the list of world’s coal

producers, but for many years needed more coal than she produced.

Possibly enough coal could have been mined in France by greater

developments, but to import it was cheaper. French capital was invested

in some foreign coal deposits. A company of French control owned the

Stonehall colliery, near Dover. Before the war a French company was

one of the largest operators in Turkey and was steadily acquiring new

mines. A French company owned an important colliery in the Dombrova

field, now part of Poland.

France has maintained government coaling stations for shipping in

Indo-China, Tahiti, Society Islands, Martinique, and Madagascar; but

no attempt is made to supply them wholly with French coal, or to be

independent of other coaling stations.

=Italy.=--Italy has a poor supply of low-grade coal, and the normal

production is insignificant. Imports have been large, those from Great

Britain amounting in 1914 to 10,000,000 tons.

=Russia.=--Russia has several important coal fields. The production

was 31,000,000 tons in 1915 and 23,000,000 in 1916, so that Russia,

including the province of Ukraine, has ranked fifth or sixth among the

world’s producers. If the demand for coal develops under the stimulus

of industrial stability, the output will all be consumed in Russia.

About two-thirds of the production has been raised in the Donetz basin.

Half of this is coking coal.

=Japan.=--Japan has on the main island, Hondo, enough coal to permit

considerable exports. Supplies in Korea and Formosa are less abundant.

In all Japan’s coal there is very little of good coking quality.

When the war reduced the amount of British shipping in the North

Pacific, Japanese ships supplied Japanese coal to a number of new

coaling stations, and the British may find it difficult to regain their

former prominence in bunkering there. Japanese coal now gets as far

west also as Colombo, Ceylon.

Japanese law specifies Japanese control of the policy of mining

companies, though some foreign financial interests are allowed. Japan

controls a part of the coal produced in China, and by presenting

insistent demands is increasing her control in that country. If given a

free hand, Japan is in a position to exercise industrial and military

control in Asia almost as thoroughly as the United States can in

America. English and Belgian interests have some Chinese coal, and thus

are about the only real competition at present with Japanese control.

=China.=--Outside the United States, China has the largest coal

reserves of any country in the world. The coal varies in quality and

grade; some of it is excellent, but the production has reached only

about 18,000,000 tons a year. Some districts export and others import

coal. The country could easily be independent if there were internal

means of distribution. There might even be large exports if production

began in advance of other industrial development. Coking coal is

available only in certain areas, mostly in the south.

The largest and best-equipped producer is the Kailan Mining

Administration, operating British and Chinese properties. The ownership

of the company is mostly in Belgian hands, but the incorporation is

under Hong Kong law, so that the company is under British control.

The chief producers in China are:

TABLE 6.--CHIEF PRODUCERS OF COAL IN CHINA

----------------------------+-----------+----------------------------

Company |Tons a year|Control

----------------------------+-----------+----------------------------

Kailan Mining Administration| 3,000,000 |British and Chinese

Funshun Collieries | 2,000,000 |Owned by the South Manchuria

| |Railway Co. (Japanese)

Pingshieng Collieries | 1,000,000 |Chinese

Pekin Syndicate | 500,000 |British

Pingshihu | 300,000 |Japanese

Lincheng | 800,000 |Belgian

----------------------------+-----------+----------------------------

The Mining Company of Shantung, producing 400,000 tons a year, formerly

owned by the Germans, is now run by the Japanese military organization.

Thus only one of the large producers is under Chinese control, though

many smaller mines are worked by Chinese. The Chinese law designed to

prevent foreign control of this sort is not effective. It requires that

the share of a mining industry held by foreigners shall not be over

one-half; but if a foreign company owns half the shares and finances

the Chinese half by a loan, the foreign control may be complete. There

is a further control of mining, through the ownership of railways. All

the larger producers must ship coal by rail, and foreign nations are

allowed to finance railways. The difficulty of a government exercising

adequate political and commercial control when it grants concessions in

this way is evident.

General mining affairs in China are supervised by a Bureau of Mining

Affairs. Any specific enterprise is controlled by a commissioner

of finance in each province. It is questionable, however, whether

governmental control will be strong enough to overbalance commercial

and financial control, and diplomatic pressure from outside. Those

companies incorporated under Hong Kong law can count on British

protection. Japanese demands on China have been very insistent, and

it is said that about a third of the production of the country is now

controlled by Japan.

As a whole, China seems to take a small part in the control of her own

coal. The opportunity for other powers to get financial, and, through

that, industrial favors may be involved in the problem of financing the

central government.

TABLE 7.--PRODUCTION, EXPORTS AND IMPORTS FOR 1913[8]

Millions of metric tons

---------+------------+----------+-------+-------+--------------------

---------+------------+----------+-------+-------+--------------------

United |Anthracite | 85 | 4.1 | ... |Resources greater

States |Bituminous | 432 | 18.0 | 1.4 |than those of any

|Coke | 42 | 1.0 | 0.1 |other country; can

|Bunker coal | ... | (7.7) | ... |easily increase

| | | | |$10,962,000.

---------+------------+----------+-------+-------+--------------------

Britain |Bituminous | 282 | 73.4 | ... |country; before war

|Coke | 20.5 | 1.2 | ... |had virtual monopoly

|Briquettes | ... | 2.1 | ... |of ocean exports.

|Bunker coal | |(21.0) | ... |Export control

---------+------------+----------+-------+-------+--------------------

German |Bituminous | 191 | 34.6 | 10.5 |Coal needed for

Empire |Lignite | 87 | ... | 7 |Central Europe.

|Coke | 32 | 6.4 | 0.6 |Exports by rail and

|Briquettes | 5.8 | 2.3 | 0.3 |seaports prevents

|Briquettes | 21.4 | 0.9 | 0.1 |Westphalia has

---------+------------+----------+-------+-------+largest coking coal

---------+------------+----------+-------+-------+--------------------

Silesia |Lignite | 2.3 | ... | ... |Silesia to be

(Included|Coke | 3.1 | ... | ... |determined by

---------+------------+----------+-------+-------+--------------------

Austria- |Bituminous | 17.6 | 0.7 | 13.7 |Austria, already

Hungary |Lignite | 36.4 | 7.0 | ... |deficient in

---------+------------+----------+-------+-------+--------------------

Austria |Bituminous | 16.3 | ... | ... |Hungary always

(Included|Lignite | 27.4 | ... | ... |lacked enough

under |Coke | 2.6 | ... | ... |bituminous coal, and

---------+------------+----------+-------+-------+--------------------

---------+------------+----------+-------+-------+--------------------

France |Bituminous | 40.0 | 1.3 | 18.7 |France consumed in

|Lignite | 0.8 | ... | ... |1913 (millions of

|Coke | 4.0 | 0.2 | 3.0 |tons)

|Briquettes | 3.7 | 0.1 | 1.1 |Coal 51.2

| | | | | ----

| | | | | 62.9

| | | | |

---------+------------+----------+-------+-------+--------------------

(Included|chiefly | 32.3 | ... | 8.1 |developed fields and

---------+------------+----------+-------+-------+--------------------

Belgium |Bituminous | 22.8 | 4.9 | 8.9 |Belgium has high-

|Coke | 3.5 | 1.1 | 0.4 |grade steam coals

|Briquettes | 2.6 | 0.6 | 1.1 |and some coking

---------+------------+----------+-------+-------+--------------------

[8] Compiled by George S. Rice.

TABLE 8.--COUNTRIES IN EUROPE LARGELY DEPENDENT ON IMPORTS OF FUEL.

PRODUCTION AND IMPORTS, 1913[9]

Millions of metric tons

-----------+----------+----------+-------+----------------------------

| Kind | | |

Country | of coal |Production|Imports|Remarks (1919)

-----------+----------+----------+-------+----------------------------

Holland |Bituminous| 2.0 | 12.0 |Holland, in the small

| | | |Limbourg basin, has an

| | | |extension of the Aix-la-

| | | |Chapelle basin of Germany.

| | | |The output is increasing,

| | | |but as the basin is small

| | | |Holland will import from

| | | |Westphalia, Belgium and

| | | |Great Britain or America.

-----------+----------+----------+-------+----------------------------

Italy |Anthracite| 0.7 | 10. |Italy has insignificant and

|and | | |poor resources in thin

|Lignite | | |anthracite beds and in

| | | |lignite deposits; has

| | | |depended on Great Britain

| | | |for imports, but now the

| | | |United States is furnishing

| | | |some coal. Water-power

| | | |developments are large;

| | | |opportunity for further

| | | |development.

-----------+----------+----------+-------+----------------------------

Spain |Bituminous| 4.3 | 3.6 |Spain has a number of small

| | | |coal basins. It must

| | | |continue to import.

-----------+----------+----------+-------+----------------------------

Sweden |Bituminous| 0.4 | 4.8 |Sweden has a few thin impure

| | | |beds, but has relied on

| | | |imports from Great Britain.

-----------+----------+----------+-------+----------------------------

Norway | | | 2.3 |Norway has no coal resources

| | | |and has imported coal from

| | | |Great Britain.

-----------+----------+----------+-------+----------------------------

Switzer- | | | 1.6 |Switzerland has no coal

land | | | |worthy of mention; it has

| | | |relied on imports from

| | | |Westphalia. Since the

| | | |armistice, Switzerland has

| | | |imported coal from the

| | | |United States, but this

| | | |movement is abnormal.

-----------+----------+----------+-------+----------------------------

[9] Compiled by George S. Rice.

=Conclusions.=--As regards political control, three great national

or race factors loom in the future of the coal industry and in the

development of wealth and power: the European, dominated by England;

the American, by the United States; and the Asiatic, by Japan. The

efforts of England during the war temporarily prostrated her, and

diminished the grip of her export coal and bunkering trade, but

conditions late in 1919 indicated that recovery might be rapid. The

immediate growth in the mining of coal for use at home, with consequent

progress in steel and other industries, however, will be greatest in

the United States, because of our gigantic resources. In the East,

however, are indications of a development of China’s coal and the

growth of attendant industries on a scale which may in time outstrip

those of any country except America, and transfer the bulk of wealth

and power to the two great civilizations, on either side of the

Pacific--the newest, that of America, and the oldest, that of China

and Japan. The war and the settlements after the war proved an unmixed

benefit and opportunity to Japan, and enabled her so to strengthen

herself in China and Korea that she is not only the preponderating

power in the East, but may claim a sphere of influence and a wide

protectorate for Asia, far more effective than the American Monroe

Doctrine.

Having regard to national internal economy and external and internal

effectiveness, the United States will clearly neglect the main function

of government if it fails to exercise an effective supervision and

regulation of the coal industry. This industry is national; every

citizen has an interest in it, and a right to expect its administration

for the highest benefit of all.

TABLE 9.--PRODUCTION AND IMPORTS OF FUEL OF SOUTH AMERICAN COUNTRIES IN

1913[10]

Millions of metric tons

-----------+----------+-------+---------------------------------------

Country |Production|Imports|Remarks (1919)

-----------+----------+-------+---------------------------------------

Argentina | | 4.0 |Argentina has no coal resources.

| | |Imports chiefly from Great Britain;

| | |Cardiff coal.

-----------+----------+-------+---------------------------------------

Brazil | | 2.2 |Brazil has coal, but it is inaccessible

| | |for transportation.

-----------+----------+-------+---------------------------------------

Chile | 1.23 | 0.6 |Chile has some coal, but does not mine

| | |enough high-grade coal for its needs;

| | |has imported from Great Britain.

-----------+----------+-------+---------------------------------------

Colombia | | |Colombia has some undeveloped coal

| | |resources; has imported a little coal

| | |from time to time from the United

| | |States.

-----------+----------+-------+---------------------------------------

Peru | 0.28 | 0.02 |Peru has small coal resources and mines

| | |a little coal, practically enough for

| | |its needs.

-----------+----------+-------+---------------------------------------

Uruguay | | 0.8 |Uruguay has no coal resources and

| | |imported some in the past, chiefly from

| | |Great Britain.

-----------+----------+-------+---------------------------------------

Total South| | |

America | 1.51 | 7.6 |

-----------+----------+-------+---------------------------------------

[10] Compiled by George S. Rice.

TABLE 10.--1913 PRODUCTION, EXPORTS, AND IMPORTS OF COAL OF PRINCIPAL

COUNTRIES OF ASIA AND AUSTRALIA[11]

Millions of metric tons

---------+----------+----------+-------+-------+----------------------

---------+----------+----------+-------+-------+----------------------

---------+----------+----------+-------+-------+----------------------

---------+----------+----------+-------+-------+----------------------

| | | | 2.0 |Japan, but China has

---------+----------+----------+-------+-------+----------------------

---------+----------+----------+-------+-------+----------------------

---------+----------+----------+-------+-------+----------------------

New | | | | |New South Wales has

Wales | | 10.5 | 6.0 | |good coal. One-half of

---------+----------+----------+-------+-------+----------------------

New | | | | |New Zealand has small

---------+----------+----------+-------+-------+----------------------

---------+----------+----------+-------+-------+have considerable coal

---------+----------+----------+-------+-------+grade or quality to be

---------+----------+----------+-------+-------+----------------------

[11] Compiled by George S. Rice.

Political and commercial geology and the world's mineral resources · 第 2 / 32 章