The Economic Aspect of Geology

by C. K. Leith

Measures Introduced or Proposed to Conserve Coal

The following list of measures for conservation of coal is taken from several sources. The exhaustive report of the British Coal Commission,[43] published in 1905, contains a considerable number of specific recommendations for conservation of the coal of Great Britain. The reports of the National Conservation Commission[44] of the United States, published in 1909, treat of the conservation of the coal of the United States and naturally follow some of the recommendations of the British report. The coal section of the National Conservation report was prepared by M. R. Campbell and E. W. Parker of the U. S. Geological Survey, and is contained in U. S. Geological Survey Bulletin 394. The recommendations there given are amplified and developed by Van Hise[45] in his book on Conservation, published in 1910. Since that time the subject has been discussed by Smith, Chance, Burrows, Haas,[46] and others, and certain additional conservational methods have been proposed. A considerable number of men have also discussed the sociologic and economic aspects of the question. The report of the Conservation Commission of Canada,[47] published in 1915, treats rather fully of the conservation of mineral resources.

It will suit our purpose, and avoid some repetition, if we group most of these recommendations without regard to authorship. In general, these recommendations can be grouped under the heads: (A) Methods of mining and preparation of coal; (B) Improvement of labor and living conditions at the mines; (C) Introduction or modification of laws to regulate or to remove certain restrictions on the coal industry; (D) Distribution and transportation of coal; (E) Utilization of coal; (F) Substitutes for coal as a source of power.

(A) Mining and preparation of coal. Under this heading may be included a large number of proposals which concern primarily the engineering treatment of the coal underground and in the mine plants. Some of the more important measures are:

1. Introduction of the long-wall system of mining in places where the conditions allow it, in order to minimize the waste underground.

2. Modification of the room-and-pillar system of mining, by which larger pillars are left while the mine advances, and are recovered in the retreat,—thereby recovering a larger percentage of coal than under the old system, where small, thin pillars were left, which failed and were permanently lost.

It has been argued that the great loss of coal by leaving it in pillars could be saved by using other material to support the roof; but an elementary calculation of the cost of this procedure shows that it is cheaper to use the coal. Chance[48] says:

The coal left as pillars to support the roof is thus utilized and performs a necessary and useful function, yet the principal part (perhaps two-thirds) of the 200,000,000 tons our friends the conservationists claim is wilfully and avoidably wasted every year is this coal that is left in pillars to support the roof. I think we can safely claim that this is not waste, but, on the contrary, is engineering efficiency of the highest type, in that it utilizes the cheapest and least valuable material available to support the roof and saves the whole labor cost of building supports of other materials. Investigation as to what becomes of that part of the 200,000,000 tons claimed as wasted, which is not utilized as pillars to support the roof, will disclose the fact that a very large portion is coal that is left in mine workings that are abandoned because the roof is unsafe and because a continuance of operation would result in injuries or loss of life. Coal left in the mines in order to conserve human lives cannot be classed as avoidable waste. A small part of the 200,000,000 tons is lost because it is intimately mixed with refuse and because the labor cost of recovering it and separating it from the refuse would be greater than its value.

3. Mining of shallow bituminous beds by means of the steam shovel. Progress has been made along this line in the last few years, and valuable deposits are thus mined which can be mined profitably by no other method.

4. New methods of filling mined-out spaces with sand, and new methods of mine survey and design. According to Haas[49]

the greatest advance in the question of method was the system of mine survey and design perfected in both the anthracite and bituminous fields. The relatively new method of filling old spaces with sand, etc., has also achieved success.

5. Use of methods by which coal is not left in the roof for the support where the roof is weak, and by which coal of inferior quality is not left in the roof.

6. Wider use of coal-cutting machines by which the wasting of thinner beds may be avoided.

7. Where conditions allow it, the working of the upper beds before the lower, in order not to destroy the upper ones by caving. The mining of a lower coal seam has often so broken up the overlying strata as to render it impossible to recover the upper coal seams contained therein. There are certain difficulties, however, in the way of this conservational measure. In some localities the seams are under separate ownership, and there is a resulting conflict of interests. Also, if the better coal seam happens to be below and the poorer seams above, market conditions may require that the lower seam be mined regardless of the destruction of the upper ones.

8. Elimination of coal barriers to mark the limits between properties. This involves more coöperation.

9. Improvement of mining machinery, power drills, etc.

10. Centralization of power stations, rather than the use of many small units.

11. Elimination of the wasting of slack or fine coal, through more careful methods of mining, through limitations on the excessive use of powder and larger use of wedges, through the abolition of laws for the payment of miners on a run-of-mine basis, and in the case of anthracite through recovery of the "silt" or dust caused by mining and sorting. It has been argued that the excessive use of powder ("shooting from the solid") means loss of coal, owing to the fact that it shatters the coal and makes a relatively large amount of slack, besides being accompanied by increased danger from fire and explosion and from weakening of the roof. Although the excessive use of powder makes a large amount of slack, it does not necessarily result in waste, for this fine coal is carefully saved and for certain purposes is as valuable as the lump coal. So far as the procedure endangers life, it is of course objectionable.

12. Better use of fine coal. It has been recommended that infirm and finely broken coal be washed and compressed, thus avoiding the wasting of slack coal, which was formerly thrown away or burned. However, in recent years there has been comparatively little waste of this kind, for slack coal in general finds nearly as ready a market as lump coal and the use of slack is increasing. There has been much discussion also of the possibilities of using the coal waste on the ground to make power for electric transmission.

13. More careful attention to sorting and sizing of all grades of coal coming from the mine and to preparation of coals for special uses. On the other hand, some operators say that the ends of conservation will be best met by limiting the sorting and sizing now practiced. The large number of sizes now put on the market greatly increases the cost of production.

14. Wider use of the lower-grade fuels of the west, particularly with the aid of briquetting.

Progress in above methods. Methods of mining and preparation of coal have been improved. Campbell and Parker state:[50]

A much greater proportion of the product hoisted is now being sent to market in merchantable condition. Part of this is due to better and more systematic methods of handling, and part to the saving of small sizes which formerly went to the culm banks. The higher prices of coal and the development of methods for using these small sizes have also made it possible, through washing processes, to rework the small coal formerly thrown on the culm banks, and these are now furnishing several millions of tons of marketable coal annually.

In general there is increase in the percentage of recovery of coal. Whereas in the past the loss in mining was said by Campbell and Parker[51] to average 50 per cent, now an extraction of 70 to 90 per cent may be looked for.

Quoting from Smith and Lesher:[52]

Observation of the advances made in mining methods in the last decade or two affords slight warrant for belief in any charge of wasteful operation. As consumers of coal we might do well to imitate the economy now enforced by the producers in their engineering practice. In the northern anthracite field machine mining in extracting coal from 22- and 24-inch beds, and throughout the anthracite region the average recovery of coal in mining is 65 per cent., as against 40 per cent. only twenty years ago. Nor are the bituminous operators any less progressive in their conservation of the coal they mine.

In anthracite mining, powdered coal or "silt" has accumulated in stockpiles and in stream channels to many tens of millions of tons. It is estimated that this constitutes nearly 6 per cent of the coal mined. Significant progress has been made recently in the recovery and use of this silt as powdered fuel for local power purposes.

However, physical and commercial conditions do not in all cases allow of the full application of these new methods. Once a mine has been opened up on a certain plan, it is difficult to change it. As a whole the longer and better organized companies are better able to change than the smaller companies.

Conservation measures of the above kinds, as so far applied, have come mainly from private initiative based on self-interest,—though the coöperation of the government has been effective, particularly along educational and publicity lines.

(B) Improvement of labor and living conditions at the mines. Under this heading should be mentioned the improvement of housing, sanitation, and living conditions; improvements in the efficiency of labor, through making living conditions such as to attract a higher-grade labor supply and through educational means; the introduction of safety methods; the introduction of workmen's compensation and insurance; and other measures of a similar nature. All these measures as a class are sometimes grouped under the name of "welfare work."

Much thought and discussion have been devoted to the possibilities of improvement of labor and living conditions from the standpoint of conservation of human energy. In some quarters this subject has been treated as being independent of the physical conservation of mineral resources, and it has been the tendency to assume that conservation of human energy might be more or less inimical to conservation of mineral resources. Certain of the changes already introduced have undoubtedly increased the cost of mining; and, until there was a general increase in selling price, this increased cost may have had the effect of eliminating certain practices of mineral conservation which might otherwise have been possible. For instance, according to Smith and Lesher:[53]

The increased safety in the coal mines that has come through the combined efforts of the coal companies, the state inspectors, and the Federal Bureau of Mines necessarily involves some increase in cost of operation, but the few cents per ton thus added to the cost is a small price to pay for the satisfaction of having the stain of blood removed from the coal we buy. That form of social insurance which is now enforced through the workmen's compensation laws alone adds from 2 to 5 cents a ton to the cost of coal.

On the other hand, there can be no doubt that large advances have been made in welfare movements which were introduced for the purpose of insuring a steadier, better, and larger supply of labor, and that the general gain in efficiency of operation thereby obtained has absorbed a large part of the increased cost.

In general, conservation measures of this class have been developed coöperatively by private and public efforts, without important sacrifice of private interest. There is obviously room for much wider application of such measures, especially in some of the bituminous fields where conditions are still far from satisfactory.

(C) Introduction or modification of laws to regulate or to remove certain restrictions on the coal industry. It has been proposed:

1. To modify the laws so as to take care of situations where vertically superposed beds are owned by different parties, preventing the proper mining of the coal by either party.

2. To modify the laws so as to eliminate conflict in mining practice in cases where the coal is associated with oil and gas pools.

3. To allow larger ownership by companies utilizing the coal (now only 3 per cent owned by such companies).

4. To place restrictions on over-capitalization, which leads to wasteful mining in order to secure quick and large returns on large capital.

5. To remove restrictions on concentration of control. This means, as a corollary proposition, virtual restriction of competition. Concentration of control into comparatively few hands has undoubtedly favored conservation. It is easy to see that the stronger financial condition of the large companies makes it possible for them to take fuller advantage of modern methods of extraction, distribution, and marketing.

This proposal was especially urged for the bituminous coal industry before the war in order to avoid over-production and over-development. The very wide distribution of the bituminous coals, their enormous quantity, and their exceedingly diversified ownership had led to over-development of coal properties. Quoting from Smith and Lesher:[54]

In estimating the aggregate losses incurred by society by reason of the large number of mines not working at full capacity, the facts to be considered are that the capital invested in mine equipment asks a wage based on a year of 365 days of 24 hours, while labor's year averaged last year only 230 days in the anthracite mines and only 203 days in the bituminous mines, with only five to eight hours to the day.

These conditions prevented in some cases even the most modest introduction of better methods, or of changes that would enhance the average profits through a relatively short period of ten or fifteen years at the expense of the present year. It was necessary to get at the best of the coal available in the cheapest possible way, regardless of the losses of coal left in the ground.

To some extent the force of this argument was minimized by war and post-war conditions, but even yet development of coal mines is ahead of transportation and distribution.

6. To allow coöperation in the limitation of output, in the avoidance of cross freights, in gauging the market in advance, and in division of territory, all of which would allow cheaper mining and thus give larger leeway to conservational measures. This necessarily would be accompanied by government regulation. According to Van Hise,[55] who was active before the war in advocating this conservational measure, such a procedure

is neither regulated competition, nor regulated monopoly; but the retention of competition, the prohibition of monopoly, permission for coöperation and regulation of the latter. In Chicago there cannot be one selling agency for the different coal companies which operate in Illinois, but there must be many selling agencies, and the coal of Pittsburgh must come into Illinois and the Illinois coal go toward Pittsburgh; every one of which things makes unnecessary costs, but all of which are inevitable under the extreme competitive system. Because of these facts it is necessary to waste the coal. If at the very same prices the different mines could coöperate in the limitation of the output, avoidance of cross freights, gauging the market in advance, and division of territory, they could mine their coal more cheaply, have a greater profit for themselves and conserve our resources.

To some extent the plan here advocated was put into effect during the war by the United States Coal Administration; but the conditions of this trial were so complicated by special war requirements, that the conservational advantages of unified control were not demonstrated.

7. To reduce the excessive royalties paid to fee owners. Smith and Lesher[56] have recently called attention to the relatively high resource cost in some of the coal fields, represented by the payment of royalties to fee owners. In the case of anthracite the payment averages 32 to 35 cents per ton, and exceptionally runs as high as a dollar per ton. For the bituminous coal the average resource cost is probably not much over five cents a ton. They suggest the possibility of lowering this cost by governmental regulation; and make an especially strong argument for not allowing the government-owned coal lands to go to private owners, who in the future, with the accumulation of interest on the investment, will feel justified in asking for a large "resource" return in the way of royalty.

If the resource cost could be lowered, further introduction of conservational methods by the operators would be possible without greatly increasing the cost to the public.

8. To require or allow, by government regulation, a raising of the price of coal to the consumer, thereby allowing wider application of conservational practices. Some of the increased recoveries of coal above noted have been made possible only by increase in the market price. If coöperation were permitted in the manner described in paragraph 6, the same results might be accomplished without increasing the price. Recent high prices caused by the war situation are reflected in the introduction of many conservational changes which were not before possible. However, in some cases the demand for quick results under present conditions has an opposite effect, because of the desire to realize quick profits regardless of conservation.

9. The local conservation of coal at the expense of heavier drafts on coal of other parts of the world, by imposition of export taxes and preferential duties, has been discussed. While the effect of such a measure would doubtless be conservational from the standpoint of the United States, it is doubtful if it could be so regarded from the broader standpoint of world civilization. Under present world conditions such a step would be disastrous.

10. Government ownership has been proposed as a means of facilitating the introduction of conservation measures. In the United States there is yet no major movement in this direction. In England the question of nationalization of coal mines is an extremely live political problem (see pp. 343, 345-347).

Little progress has been made in conservation measures which involve legal enactments of the kinds above listed.

(D) Distribution, and transportation of coal. It has been argued that conservational results would ensue from:

1. Cheaper transportation.

2. Larger use of waterways.

3. Improvement in distribution of the product by partition of the market and by larger use of local coals. For effectiveness this proposition would have to include control of the agencies of distribution, in order to minimize excessive profits of middlemen.

4. Purchasing and storage of coal by consumers during the spring and summer months in anticipation of the winter requirements, in order to equalize the present highly fluctuating seasonal demands on the mines and railroads, and to eliminate the recurring shortages of coal in the winter months. This was particularly recommended by the United States Bituminous Coal Commission in a recent report.[57]

5. Where conditions allow it, conversion of coal into power at the mine and delivery of power rather than coal to consuming centers. This type of conservation is being put into practice on a large scale above Wheeling, on the Ohio River, where there has recently been built a two hundred thousand kilowatt installation for steam-generated electric power. Some of the power will be delivered to Canton, Ohio, over fifty miles away. This plant uses local coal and the cost of coal is figured at two mills per kilowatt-hour.

Under this heading of distribution and transportation of coal, might be considered certain international relations. The international movements of coal are summarized in another place (pp. 115-117). Anything in the way of tariffs or trade agreements which would tend to interfere with or to limit the great natural international movements of coal—which in a free field are based on suitability of grade, cost, location, transportation, etc.—would be anti-conservational from the world's standpoint, although they might be of local and temporary advantage. For instance, the coal exported from England, which has heretofore dominated the international trade of the world, is of a high grade. American coal available for export is on the whole of considerably lower grade, being higher in volatile matter. Unless this coal is beneficiated at home, it can replace the English coal in the export field only at increased cost of transportation and lower efficiency in use. The time may come when it will be desirable to ship lower-grade coals long distances; but when the two factors of conservation are considered—the intrinsic qualities of the coal, and the efforts necessary to utilize it—it would seem to be conservational at this stage to ship to long distances only the coal which nature seems specially to have prepared for this purpose.

(E) Utilization of coal. Conservational proposals of this kind are:

1. Substitution of retort coke-ovens for beehive ovens, to save not only a larger quantity of coke but also valuable by-products (see pp. 118-119). Additional improvements in coking ovens may make possible the manufacture of some sort of coke from a much wider range of bituminous coals than can be used at present.

2. Larger use of smoke consumers and mechanical stokers.

3. Larger use of central heating plants, with higher efficiency than many local plants.

4. Substitution of gas engines for steam engines, and improvement of the steam engine.

5. Improvement in methods of smelting, leading to larger output of metal per ton of coke used. Also the development of electric smelting for certain metals.

6. More careful study and classification of the qualities of coals, in order to avoid use of higher-grade coals where inferior coals would serve the purpose.

7. More consumption at the collieries.

8. Larger use of powdered coal as fuel.

9. Improvement of force-draft furnaces.

10. Larger use of gas, a by-product of coal mining, and extraction of other by-products.

11. More efficient transformation of peat and coal into power and light.

12. The possible use of oil flotation to eliminate foreign mineral matter.

Most of the conservation measures above proposed have already been applied with good results, and with promise of large results for the future. The stimulus has come largely from self-interest. War conditions in some ways aided and in others hindered these developments. One of the conspicuous gains was the building of many by-product coke plants, under the necessity of securing the nitrates and hydrocarbons for munition and other purposes.

(F) Substitutes for coal as a source of power. Some of the more prominent measures along this line which have been discussed are:

1. Larger use of water power. This has sometimes been popularly assumed to be, at least potentially, a complete solution of the problem; but nevertheless it has its distinct limitations.

Water power has the advantages that its sources are not exhausted by use, and that the relatively greater initial cost of a hydro-electric plant is frequently more than compensated for by the saving in man power required and by the lower operating expense. However, the total amount of water power which can be developed on a commercial basis is rather closely limited, and much of the available power is so distributed geographically that it cannot be economically supplied to the industries which need it. Of the total water-power resources of the United States which have been estimated by the Geological Survey to be available for ultimate development, over 70 per cent is west of the Mississippi,—whereas over 70 per cent of the horse-power now installed in prime movers is east of the Mississippi. Electric power cannot at present be economically transmitted more than a few hundred miles. Furthermore, for many uses of coal, as in metallurgical and chemical processes which require the heat or reducing action of burning coal, and in its use as fuel for ships, hydro-electric power cannot be substituted. It seems clear that while the use of water power will increase, particularly as rising prices of coal make possible the development of new sites, it can never take the place of the mineral fuels in any large proportion.

For the immediate future, measures which have been suggested to extend the use of water power include: the more complete utilization of water powers already in use through more efficient machinery and methods; a certain degree of redistribution of industries, so that those requiring large amounts of power may be located in areas where water power is cheap and abundant; and the interconnection of hydro-electric plants so that their full capacity may be used. Some water powers which have been developed are not being fully utilized because the plants are not connected with distribution systems large enough to use all the power. During the war the United States Geological Survey, in coöperation with the Fuel Administration and the War Industries Board, collected the information required to prepare maps showing the locations and relations of power stations and transmission lines throughout the country. This survey of the situation showed many possibilities, which had before been but vaguely realized, of interconnections which would increase the efficiency of the plants.

2. Substitution of lower-grade coals—of bituminous for anthracite, and of low-grade bituminous for high-grade bituminous coals. Larger use of low-grade western coals. War and post-war conditions have shown Germany the way to a wide and effective use of its lignites. This has been accomplished by coöperation of the government and private interests. This vast improvement in methods of treatment and recovery of heating elements and by-products will doubtless have a widespread effect on utilization of lignites in other parts of the world.

3. Substitution of alcohol and natural gas, oil, oil shales, peats, etc., as a source of power. This merely concentrates the conservation problem more largely on these minerals, in some of which, at least, it is already considerably more acute than in the case of coal; it is not a solution of the problem, but merely a shifting of emphasis.

Business conditions have limited private enterprise in this class of measures, but some progress has been made. More rapid introduction of these measures would require sacrifice of private interest and probably may be accomplished only by application of public power.