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
| Country | Kind of coal | Production | Exports | Imports | Remarks (1919) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States | Anthracite | 85 | 4.1 | ... | Resources greater than those of any other country; can easily increase ocean exports withmore shipping available. Present exports chiefly to Canada. Value of coal-tar products imported in 1913, $10,962,000. | ||||||||
| Bituminous | 432 | 18.0 | 1.4 | ||||||||||
| Coke | 42 | 1.0 | 0.1 | ||||||||||
| Bunker coal | ... | (7.7) | ... | ||||||||||
| Great Britain | Anthracite | 5 | ... | ... | Chief coal-exporting country; before war had virtual monopoly of ocean exports. Exportcontrol imperiled by shortage from labor conditions. | ||||||||
| Bituminous | 282 | 73.4 | ... | ||||||||||
| Coke | 20.5 | 1.2 | ... | ||||||||||
| Briquettes | ... | 2.1 | ... | ||||||||||
| Bunker coal | (21.0) | ... | |||||||||||
| German Empire | Bituminous | 191 | 34.6 | 10.5 | Coal needed for Central Europe. Exports by rail and canal. Distance fromseaports prevents oversea exports. Westphalia has largest coking coal resources in Europe. Ownership ofSaar mines transferred to France by Treaty of Peace. | ||||||||
| Lignite | 87 | ... | 7 | ||||||||||
| Coke | 32 | 6.4 | 0.6 | ||||||||||
| Coal Briquettes | 5.8 | 2.3 | 0.3 | ||||||||||
| Lignite Briquettes | 21.4 | 0.9 | 0.1 | ||||||||||
| Saar District (Included under German Empire, above) | Bituminous | 17.0 | |||||||||||
| Coke | 2.0 | ||||||||||||
| Upper Silesia (Included under German Empire, above) | Bituminous | 49.1 | Nationality of Upper Silesia to be determined by plebiscite; coal productionvital to eastern Germany, Poland and Austria. | ||||||||||
| Lignite | 2.3 | ... | ... | ||||||||||
| Coke | 3.1 | ... | ... | ||||||||||
| Austria-Hungary | Bituminous | 17.6 | 0.7 | 13.7 | Austria, already deficient in bituminous coal, under the Peace Treaty losespractically all coal fields to Poland and Czecho-Slovakia. | ||||||||
| Lignite | 36.4 | 7.0 | ... | ||||||||||
| Austria (Included under Austria-Hungary, above) | Bituminous | 16.3 | ... | ... | Hungary always lacked enough bituminous coal, and under any political controlmust continue to import coal from Upper Silesia. | ||||||||
| Lignite | 27.4 | ... | ... | ||||||||||
| Coke | 2.6 | ... | ... | ||||||||||
| Hungary (Included under Austria-Hungary, above) | Bituminous | 1.3 | |||||||||||
| Lignite | 9.0 | ||||||||||||
| Coke | 0.2 | ||||||||||||
| France | Bituminous | 40.0 | 1.3 | 18.7 | France consumed in 1913 (millions of tons)
| ||||||||
| Lignite | 0.8 | ... | ... | ||||||||||
| Coke | 4.0 | 0.2 | 3.0 | ||||||||||
| Briquettes | 3.7 | 0.1 | 1.1 | ||||||||||
| Russia (Included in above is the Dombrova field of Poland) | Bituminous chiefly | 32.3 | ... | 8.1 | Russia, with poorly developed fields and great future needs, has imported from Great Britain andGermany; through loss of the Dombrova field (extension of Upper Silesian basin) needs more coal than can produce and isunlikely ever to be an exporting country. | ||||||||
| Bituminous (Some brown coal) | 7.0 | ||||||||||||
| Belgium | Bituminous | 22.8 | 4.9 | 8.9 | Belgium has high-grade steam coals and some coking coal; beds are deep and difficult to mine.Its exports to Holland and France probably will in future continue to be exceeded by imports from Westphalia and Great Britain. | ||||||||
| Coke | 3.5 | 1.1 | 0.4 | ||||||||||
| Briquettes | 2.6 | 0.6 | 1.1 |
[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
| Country | Kind 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 and Lignite | 0.7 | 10. | Italy has insignificant and poor resources in thin 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. | ||
| Switzerland | 1.6 | Switzerland has no coal 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
| Country | Kind of coal | Production | Exports | Imports | Remarks (1919) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Japan | Bituminous | 21.8 | 3.5 | ... | Japan does not have large coal resources and coal is not of high grade, but deposits are advantageously located for exporting. |
| India | ... | 16.5 | ... | ... | India has considerable good coal, but this will be needed for domestic purposes and bunkering. |
| China | Bituminous | 14.0 | ... | about 2.0 | Coal is imported from Japan, but China has great coal resources, and these are being developed by Japanese,British and American capital. Germany had large interests, which have reverted, it is understood, to Japan. |
| Indo-China | ... | 0.4 | ... | ... | Indo-China has some coal, both anthracite and lignite. |
| Siberia | ... | ... | ... | ... | Little is known of the coal resources of Siberia. There are many indications of lignite deposits. |
| New South Wales | ... | 10.5 | 6.0 | ... | New South Wales has large resources of good coal. One-half of the 6 million tons exported goes to otherAustralian states; the other half to Pacific ports. |
| New Zealand | ... | 1.9 | ... | ... | New Zealand has small coal basins, but they are close to the sea, permitting ready export. |
| Queensland | ... | 1.1 | ... | ... | Queensland, Victoria, and Western Australia have considerable coal resources, but not of grade orquality to be a factor in export trade. |
| Victoria | ... | 0.6 | ... | ... | |
| Western Australia | ... | 0.3 | ... | ... |
[11] Compiled by George S. Rice.