THE PROBLEM

Conservation of mineral resources may be defined as an effort to strike a proper balance between the present and the future in the use of mineral raw materials.

Mineral resources have been used to some extent as far back as evidences of man go, but great drafts on our resources have come in comparatively recent years. The use of many minerals has started within only a few years, and for others the acceleration of production within the past two or three decades has been rapid (see pp. 63-64). In general, the use of mineral resources on a large scale may be said to have started within the lifetime of men still active in business. The wide use of power necessary to an industrial age, the development of metallurgy, the increasing size and complexity of demands for raw material, mean that the intensive development and use of our mineral resources is in its infancy, and is in many respects in an experimental stage.

As nations have awakened to their need of mineral raw materials and to the recent rapid depletion of these materials, they have been naturally led to inquire how long the reserves may last, and to consider prevention of waste and the more efficient use of materials, with a view to planning more prudently for future national supplies. The first inquiries seemed to reveal such shortage of mineral supplies as to call for immediate and almost drastic steps to prevent waste, and possibly even to limit the use of certain minerals in the interests of posterity.

More careful study of the problem, as might be expected, revealed new factors and greater complexity. The conservational idea has a wide sentimental appeal, but the formulation and application of specific plans meet many difficulties. In its practical aspects the problem is now a live one, the solution of which is requiring the attention of mining men, engineers, geologists, economists, and public officials. It is a question which is coming more and more into the field of actual professional practice of the economic geologist.

It is our purpose to indicate the general nature of the conservation problem. We may assume agreement to the desirability of preventing waste, of making a wise present use of mineral products, and of striking a proper balance between the present and future in their use. Nature has taken many long geologic periods to build up these reserves. We, of the present generation, in a sense hold them in trust; they are entailed to our successors. With this general thought in mind, how shall we proceed to formulate definite plans for conservation?

An initial step is obviously a careful taking of stock. With increasing knowledge of mineral resources, it is becoming apparent that early estimates of supplies were too low. Many of these estimates failed to take into account mining to great depths, and wide use of low-grade ores, rendered possible by improved methods; and especially they failed to put sufficient emphasis on the probabilities of new discoveries to replace exhausted supplies. Early predictions have already been upset in regard to a number of mineral resources. The recognition of the general fact that the world is far from explored in two dimensions, to say nothing of three, of the fact that known geologic conditions do not yet indicate definite limits to the possibilities of exploration for most mineral resources, and of the consequent fact that for a long time in the future, as in the past, discoveries of new mineral deposits will be roughly proportional to the effort and money spent in finding them,—which means, also, proportional to the demand,—makes it impossible, for most of the mineral resources, to set any definite limits on reserves. It is comparatively easy to measure known reserves; but a quantitative appraisal of the probable and possible reserves for the future is extremely difficult. Successive revisions of estimates have, with but few exceptions, progressively increased the total mineral supplies available. The result is that the time of exhaustion has been pushed far into the future for most of the important minerals, thus minimizing the urge for immediate and drastic conservational action, which followed naturally from early estimates of very limited supplies. For both coal and iron, supplies are now known for hundreds or even thousands of years. For oil and lead, on the other hand, the reserves now known have a life of comparatively few years, but the possibilities for successful exploration make it probable that their life will be greatly extended. Notwithstanding this tendency to lengthen the exhaustion period, the limits of mineral resource life are still small as compared with the life of the nation or of civilization,—and the fundamental desirability of conservation is not materially affected.

It is not easy to predict the rate of production for the future. At the present rate of coal production in the United States, the supplies to a depth of 6,000 feet might last 6,000 years; but if it be assumed that the recent acceleration of production will be continued indefinitely into the future, the result would be exhaustion of these supplies in less than 200 years. It is generally agreed that exhaustion will come sooner than 6,000 years, but will require more time than 200 years. The range between these figures offers wide opportunity for guessing. It is supposed that per capita consumption may not increase as fast in the future as in the past, that possibly an absorption point will be reached, and that there will be limits to transportation and distribution; but how to evaluate these factors no one knows. In the case of some of the metallic resources, such as iron, the fact that the world's stock on hand is constantly increasing—losses due to rusting, ship-wrecks, etc., being only a small fraction of the annual output—suggests that a point will be reached where new production will cease to accelerate at the present rate and may even decline. But again, the factors are so complex and many of them so little known, that no one can say how soon this point will be reached.

For the immediate future, there is little to be feared from shortage of mineral supplies in the ground. The difficulties are more likely to arise from the failure of means to extract and distribute these supplies fast enough to keep up with the startling acceleration in future demand indicated by the figures of recent years. The speed and magnitude of recent material developments in many lines cannot but raise question as to whether we have the ability to understand and coÖdinate the many huge, variable, and accelerating factors we have to deal with, or whether some of the lines of development may not get so far ahead of others as to cause serious disturbance of the whole material structure of civilization. Coal alone, which now constitutes a third of our railway tonnage, may with increased rate of production require two-thirds of present railway capacity. Will railway development keep up? It may be noted that national crises and failures in the past history of the world have seldom, if ever, been due to shortage of raw materials, or in fact to any failure of the material environment.

In its early stages the conservation movement in this country concerned itself principally with the raw material. Later there came the recognition of the fact that conservation of raw materials is closely bound up with the question of conservation of human energy. The two elements in the problem are much like the two major elements in mineral resource valuation (see pages 329-330). If in saving a dollar's worth of raw material, we spend two dollars worth of energy, it naturally raises question as to the wisdom of our procedure. It might be wiser in some cases to waste a certain amount of raw material because of the saving of time and effort. It might be better for posterity to have the product of our energy multiplied into raw material than to have the raw material itself. The valuation of these two major elements of conservation is again almost impossible of quantitative solution. We do not know what is the best result to be aimed for. We cannot foresee the requirements of the future nor the end toward which civilization is moving—or should move. The extravagance of the United States is often contrasted unfavorably with the thriftiness of Europe. When considered in relation to raw materials alone, there seems to be basis for this charge. When considered in relation to the product of human energy into raw materials, the conclusion may be far different; for the output per man in the industries related to mineral resources is far greater in the United States than in Europe. In the case of iron, it has been estimated that the output per man in the United States is two and one-half times as great as in the rest of the world. Which is best in the true interests of conservation, we are not yet able to see.

Our view of what is desirable in the way of conservation depends somewhat on the limitations imposed by self-interest or location. By devoting ourselves exclusively to one mineral resource, we might work out a conservation program very disadvantageous to the best use of some other mineral commodity. We might take steps to conserve chromite in the United States which would have a disastrous effect on the iron and steel industry. We might conserve coal by the substitution of oil, when the procedure is hardly warranted by the supplies of oil available. We might work out a program for the United States which would not be the best conservational plan for the world as a whole, and which would ultimately react to the disadvantage of the United States. The wisest and most intelligent use of mineral resources seems to call unquestionably for their consideration in their world relations, rather than for a narrow interpretation of local requirements.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PRIVATE AND PUBLIC EFFORTS IN CONSERVATION

It appears that a wide range of effective conservational practices has resulted solely from the effort to make more money through more efficient operations, and this is likely to be true in the future. Many improvements in mining, grading, sorting, concentration, and metallurgy of minerals, to yield larger financial returns, are coming naturally through private initiative, under the driving power of self-interest.

Another considerable group of conservational practices is possible only to governments or other public agencies. This group of practices on the whole requires some sacrifice of the immediate financial interest of the individual, in the interests of the community as a whole, or in the interests of posterity. In this group may be mentioned the compulsory use of methods of mining, sorting, and metallurgy which tend to conserve supplies but result in higher prices; the control of prices; the elimination or lowering of the so-called resource or royalty value (p. 375); and the removal of restrictions on private combination or coÖperation, leading to more efficient methods, lessening of cost, and better distribution of the product; or, what might amount to the same thing, the acquirement by the government of the resources to be operated on this larger scale.

The most effective conservation measures yet in effect are the ones dictated by self-interest and instituted by private initiative. Governmental measures are not yet in effective operation. Illustrations of these two types of conservational effort are cited in relation to coal on later pages.

THE INTEREST RATE AS A GUIDE IN CONSERVATION

In striking a balance between the present and the future, economists have emphasized the importance of recognizing the interest rate as a guiding, if not a controlling consideration. It is obviously difficult for private capital to make investments of effort and money for the purpose of conservation which will not be returned with interest some time in the future. For the present, at least, this consideration furnishes the best guide to procedure in the field of private endeavor. So far as conservational measures, such as investment in an improved process of concentrating low-grade ores, promise return of capital and an adequate interest rate in the future, they are likely to be undertaken.

It is clear that governments are not so closely bound by this economic limitation. They can afford to carry their investments in raw materials and processes at a lower interest rate than the private investor. Their credit is better. Taxes do not figure so directly. They can balance losses in one field against gains in another. As a matter of insurance for the future of the nation, a government may feel justified in inaugurating conservational measures for a particular resource without hope of the interest return which would be necessary to the private investor. In appraising the iron ores of Lorraine taken over by France from Germany at the close of the war, the actual commercial value of these ores, as figured by the ordinary ad valorem method, was only ninety millions of dollars. It is clear, however, that to France as a nation the reserves were worth more. They could afford to pay more for them, and could afford to spend more money on conservational practice than under ordinary commercial limitations, because of the larger intangible and more or less sentimental interest.

The valuation of this larger interest, as a means of determining the limit to which conservational investments may be made, lies in the political field. It may be suggested, however, that a desirable first step in any governmental program of conservation is to ascertain the cost and the possibility of an adequate return of capital and interest. These determinations at least afford a definite point of departure, and a means for measuring the cost to the people of measures which are not directly self-supporting.

ANTI-CONSERVATIONAL EFFECTS OF WAR

Experience during the recent past indicates that the exploitation of mineral resources for war purposes is on the whole anti-conservational. It is true that the vast amount of war-time exploration and development, as well as the thoroughgoing investigations of the utilization of various minerals, have led to better knowledge of the mineral resources and their possibilities. It is also true that the war required a much more exhaustive census of mineral possibilities than ever before attempted. The immediate and direct effect of the war, however, was the intensive use of mineral resources without careful regard to cost, grade, or many other factors which determine their use in peace times. For instance, in ordinary times considerable quantities of high-phosphorus iron ores are mined; but, because of the fact that such ores require more time for conversion into steel, war-time practice concentrated on the higher-grade, low-phosphorus ores, resulting in an unbalanced production which in some cases amounted almost to robbing of ore deposits. In the case of coal, quantity was almost the only consideration; it was impossible to grade and distribute the coal to meet the specialized demands of industry. The results were a general lowering of the standards of metallurgical and other industrial practices, and increased cost. High-grade coals were used where lower-grade coals were desirable for the best results. In the making of steel, it is the custom to select the coal and coke with great care in regard to their content of phosphorus, sulphur, ash, and other constituents which affect the composition of the steel product; but during the war it became necessary to accept almost any kind of coal, with a resulting net loss in quantity and in grade of output.

For a considerable number of mineral resources, such as the ferro-alloys, foreign sources of supply were cut off during the war, requiring the development and use, at high cost, of low-grade scattered supplies in the United States. It was found possible to produce enough chromite in the United States for domestic requirements, but at two or three times the normal price of imported chromite. The grade was low and the loss in efficiency to the consuming interests was a high one. The extremely limited natural supplies were raided almost to the point of exhaustion.

With the post-war resumption of importation of minerals of this kind, producers naturally began a fight for a protective tariff, and the question is yet unsettled. The tariff, if enacted, would in most cases have to be a high one in order to permit the use of domestic supplies. The results would be a large increase in cost to other industries, decreased efficiency, and the early exhaustion of limited supplies in this country. Most of the mineral resources have been concentrated by nature in a comparatively few places in the world; and when the two elements of conservation are considered—the materials themselves and the human energy expended in obtaining and using them—it is clear that any measure which interferes with the natural distribution of the favored ores is anti-conservational from the world standpoint.

CONSERVATION OF COAL

In the sections on mineral resources, there are many casual references to conservation of specific minerals. Here we shall not go further than to introduce a brief discussion of the conservation of coal as illustrative of the general problem of conservation of mineral resources.

It has been estimated that the United States possesses, to a depth of 3,000 feet, in beds 14 inches or over, 3,538,554,000,000 tons of coal, and an additional reserve between 3,000 and 6,000 feet of 666,600,000,000 tons.[42] If all the unmined coal to a depth of 3,000 feet could be placed in one great cubic pile, the pile would be 18 miles long, 18 miles wide, and 18 miles high. Of the original amount of coal to this depth only about 0.4 of 1 per cent has been mined or wasted in mining. The wastage is estimated at about 50 per cent. If the annual production of coal were to remain the same as in recent years, the total life of the coal reserves (to a depth of 3,000 feet) would be between 4,000 and 6,000 years; but if the acceleration of production of recent years were to be maintained in the future, the life would be but little over 100 years, and the life of the highest-grade coal now being mined might not be over 50 years. All agree that the acceleration of production is not likely to continue indefinitely, which will mean that the life of coal reserves to 3,000 feet will be somewhere between the two extremes named. It seems clear that actual shortage of coal will not be felt for some hundreds of years; but this period of years is short as compared with the probable life of the race.

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:

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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.

Division of Responsibility Between Government and Private Interests in the Conservation of Coal

A review of the conservation measures above listed indicates that many of them are already in operation, and that the initiative for such measures has been largely supplied by private ownership endeavoring to advance its own interest. In this category are to be included most of the improvements in physical methods of mining, preparation, and utilization of coal, the use of substitutes for coal, the concentration of control into larger groups better able to introduce new methods, and the improvement of labor and living conditions; also, under recent conditions, the increase in selling price, allowing for a wider application of these measures. Another group of conservation proposals, which have not yet been put into substantial effect, are obviously beyond the power of private interests; and must be introduced, if at all, by the application of government power. These include the elimination of resource or royalty costs, the control of over-capitalization, the removal of restrictions on concentration of control, the granting of permission for coÖperation among competitive units, the regulation of selling price minimums in order to insure during normal times the use of better physical practices, and the control of distribution. In short, it appears that there are two great spheres of conservational activity—one within the field of private endeavor, and the other possible only by collective action through the government. The principal advances thus far made have been in the field of private endeavor.

The government has aided greatly in the advancement of conservation measures arising within the field of private endeavor. One need only refer to many governmental investigations, to the spreading of information as to best methods, and to local compulsory requirements that the best practices be made uniform and that backward interests thereby be brought into line.

Recognition of the fact that there is a large body of sound conservational practice in the coal industry which falls within the range of self-interest seems essential in planning further changes in the direction of conservation. Conservational measures do not all require sacrifice of the individual to the public, nor of the present to the future generations. An exercise of public power is not in all cases essential to the advancement of conservation. The respective limits of the fields of public and private endeavor are not sharply defined, and vary from place to place and time to time, depending upon local conditions and special requirements.

In general, the sphere of private interest includes measures which will bring adequate commercial return. The interest rate is the limiting and controlling factor. When it is possible—by improvement of methods of mining, better planning, better preparation of coal, better transportation and distribution, or better utilization—to secure a larger average return on the investment, or to insure return through a longer period of years, self-interest naturally requires the introduction of such methods as rapidly as financial conditions allow. Even some of the improvements in labor and welfare conditions have been introduced in this way, with a view to securing a more permanent and more efficient labor supply, and thereby aiding the enterprise from the commercial standpoint.

Within the sphere of government activity lie the removal of unnecessary restrictions on private initiative, and such conservation measures as involve some sacrifice of individual returns—in other words, a reduction of the normal interest rate. Exercise of government power may be directly helpful within the field of private endeavor without materially sacrificing private interests; but beyond this point there are additional large possibilities of conservational activity which are clearly beyond the control of private interests. The introduction of any of these latter changes would evidently be so far-reaching in effect, and would require such broad readjustments not only within but without the mineral industry, that the necessity or desirability is not in all cases so clear as in the case of measures already introduced for private interest.

The most obviously helpful step possible to the government in the immediate future is to permit coÖperative arrangements under private ownership,—which would make it possible to use common selling agencies, thereby reducing the cost of selling; to divide the territory to be served, thereby avoiding excessive cross freights; and to allot the output in proportion to the demand from various territories, thus eliminating excessive competition and over-production. All of these measures could be accomplished without detriment to the public if properly regulated by the government. The very large saving possible by this means would allow the introduction of conservational methods at the mines without raising the cost to the public.

War conditions required even more immediate and sweeping application of government power than above indicated, but conservational purposes were quite overshadowed by other considerations.Where the mineral resources are already owned by the government, or can be acquired by the government, some of the troublesome factors in the problem are removed. In such cases it is possible to work out an intelligent plan for government control without the difficulties which arise in dealing with private ownership,—although, of course, new difficulties are introduced (see also pp. 345-347.)

The fact that there are conservational measures possible only to governments has been widely used as an argument for introducing government ownership or control. Recent vigorous demands for the nationalization of natural resources in Europe, and the increasing discussion of the subject in this country, may be regarded as phases of the conservation problem. It is not the purpose here to argue either for or against the drastic exercise of government power in the conservation of natural resources, but merely to call attention to the measures which are being discussed.

CONSERVATION OF MINERALS OTHER THAN COAL

The discussion of conservation as applied to specific minerals might be extended almost indefinitely; but perhaps enough has been said to indicate the general nature of the field. Before the war careful estimates of world supplies had been made for comparatively few minerals, although these included some of the most important, such as coal, oil, and iron. War conditions required a hasty estimate of world reserves of most of the mineral products. The reader interested in the problem will find an extremely interesting body of literature issued by the various governments on this subject. Of especial interest to the American reader will be the reports of the U. S. Geological Survey and of the Bureau of Mines.

In recent years there has been increasing recognition of the possibilities of conservational saving by concentration, refinement, and even manufacture of mineral commodities at or near the point of origin,—thus lessening the tonnage involved in transportation of the crude products. Limitations of fuel and other conditions often make this procedure difficult; but considerable progress is being made both through private initiative and, especially in international trade, through governmental regulations of great variety.

FOOTNOTES:

[42] Campbell, M. R., The coal fields of the United States: Prof. Paper 100-A, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1917, p. 24.