INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE
STUDIES AND REPORTS
Series B (Economic Conditions) No. 31
THE WORLD
COAL-MINING INDUSTRY
VOLUME I
ECONOMIC
CONDITIONS
GENEVA
1938
Published in the United Kingdom
For the INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE (LEAGUE OF NATIONS)
By P. S. KING & SON, Ltd.
Orchard House, 14 Great Smith Street, Westminster, London, S.W. 1
t
PRINTED BY ALBERT KUNDIO
GENEVA
INTRODUCTION
This Report was originally prepared and distributed in proof
as a " White " Report, intended to serve as a basis for discussion
at the Technical Tripartite Conference on the Coal-Mining Industry
which was held in Geneva in May 1938.
The Report is now reprinted with such alterations as have been
found necessary in the light of the discussions to which, in proof
form, it gave rise. It represents an effort by the International
Labour Office to give a comprehensive picture of the economic and
social conditions prevailing in the coal-mining industry, especially
in their bearing on the problem of hours of work in coal mines.
In recent years, it may be recalled, there has been an increasing
tendency towards the view that any consideration of the question
of reducing hours of work in any industry, whether by national
initiative or by international agreement, must take account of
economic and social factors governing the state of that industry—the
situation of the world market, the effects of labour standards on
costs and prices, the trend towards amalgamation and rationalisation, the volume and mobility of the labour force, the state of
employment in the industry, the cost of existing " social charges ",
the wage-levels of the workers, and all the other elements in the
general problem of the well-being of the industry and of those who
live by it.
It was in conformity with this idea that in January 1938 the
Governing Body of the I.L.O. invited representatives of the Governments, mine-owners and miners of the chief coal-producing countries to a mixed conference in Geneva on the reduction of hours
of work in coal mines, considered against the background of the
economic and social factors relevant to the problem. This meeting
of technicians and experts was intended to pave the way to a
discussion of the issue at the 1938 Session of the International
Labour Conference. In order to provide the meeting with the
necessary data for its deliberations, the Office was authorised to
prepare and distribute a Report, and it is this document, revised in
some respects, which is now published as one of the " Studies
and Reports " issued from time to time by the Office.
IV
In its original form the Report consisted of three parts :
I.
II.
III.
Economic Conditions;
Social Conditions ;
Hours of Work.
In its final form the Report comprises two volumes :
I.
II.
Economic Conditions;
Social Conditions (including Hours of Work).
The Office desires to acknowledge the help which it received in
the preparation of the Report by the supply of statistical and
technical information from Governments and other sources.
CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION
m
VOLUME I
ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
CHAPTER I : The "Coal Problem"—A Historical Survey
I. First Anticipations
II. Pre-War Conditions
III. The Effects of the World War
IV. Post-War Developments
V. " Coal Crisis " and " Coal War "
VI. Effects of the Great Depression
VII. The Part of the International Labour Organisation
VIII. The Present Report
. . .
CHAPTER I I : The Coal-Mining Industry
I.
II.
III.
The Varieties of Coal
The Variety of Mining Methods
The Variety of Colliery Activities
Definition
1
1
3
5
7
9
II
12
14
17
17
24
27
30
CHAPTER I I I : Coal in the Industrial Economy
I. Importance of Coal as a Source of Energy
Comparison of United States, Germany, Great Britain,
and the Soviet Union
II. The Conservation of Coal Resources
III. The Consumption Uses of Coal
The Available Statistics of Consumption by Uses . . .
31
31
34
37
44
46
CHAPTER IV: The World Production and Consumption of Coal . . . .
I. The Localisation of Coal Production
Main Coal-Mining Districts
Post-War Changes in Localisation of Coal Output . .
II. The Localisation of Coal Consumption
Changes in the Localisation of Consumption
53
53
59
61
66
69
VI
Page
CHAPTER V: The Problem of " Surplus Capacity "
I. The Trend of the Demand for Coal
II. Factors of the Demand for Coal
Factors of Expansion
Factors of Contraction
III. Variability of the Demand for Coal
IV. Factors affecting the Supply of Coal
New Coal-Mining Facilities
Development of Lignite Mining
The Utilisation of Small Sizes of Coal .
Mechanisation of Mining and Higher Productivity
V. Nature and Extent of Surplus Capacity
. .
74
75
77
78
82
100
101
101
105
105
106
110
CHAPTER VI : The World Trade in Coal
113
I. Relative Importance of Coal in Foreign Trade
113
Exports in Relation to Output
114
Imports in Relation to Consumption
117
The Coal Trade Balances of Individual Countries . . .
118
II. The Currents of Coal Exports and Imports
120
Exports of Coal and its Products
120
Bunker Coal
122
Metallurgical and Gas Coke and Fuel Briquettes .
123
Imports of Coal and its Products
- 124
Imports of Metallurgical and Gas Coke . . . .
127
III. The Network of Trading Relationships
128
Distribution of Coal Exports
129
Distribution of Coal Imports
133
The Main Channels of the World Coal Trade
137
IV. The Changing Structure of the World Coal Trade
142
Shifts in the Export Trade
142
Shifts in Coal Imports
145
Changes in the Network of Trading Relationships. . .
148
CHAPTER VII: Factors in the Competition for Coal Markets
I. Factors of Competition
Special Kinds and Grades of Coal
Natural Difficulties of Mining
Easy Access to Consuming Markets
Price-Spreads and Labour Costs
II. Policies affecting Competitive Relations
Protective Customs Duties.
Quota Limitations
Commercial Organisation
Export Subsidies
Preferential Trade Agreements
Currency Manipulation
Summary
157
158
158
159
160
163
179
180
181
183
183
187
190
191
VII
Page
CHAPTER V i l i : Prices, Costs and Labour Standards
I. Production and Prices
II. Prices and Export Trade
III. Prices, Total Costs of Production and Wage Costs . . . .
IV. Summary and Conclusions
194
195
200
207
216
CHAPTER IX: The Movement towards Integration and Regulation . . .
I. The Extent of Integration
Horizontal Integration
Vertical Integration
II. National Control Schemes .
Great Britain
Germany
United States
Poland
France
Other Countries
Summary
III. International Agreements
IV. Conclusions
220
220
221
227
232
232
235
239
241
243
246
248
248
251
INDEX
253
CHAPTER I
THE " COAL PROBLEM " — A HISTORICAL SURVEY
This Report is concerned with the recent developments and
present economic and social problems of the coal-mining industry.
For a better understanding of these problems, however, it may be
helpful to survey briefly the various stages through which they
have passed, especially since the World War. To give such a
historical survey with a view to providing a perspective to the
so-called " coal problem " is the purpose of the present chapter.
I.
FIRST ANTICIPATIONS
Although the " coal problem " is essentially a post-war
development, some of its elements can be traced further back.
Even in the early days of the coal-mining industry x, before coal
began to assume its key position in industrial life, difficulties arose
between mining regions which anticipate the present-day problems
of inter-district and international competition. As far back as the
second half of the seventeenth century, price-cutting rivalry
between collieries in Newcastle and Sunderland led the operators of
Newcastle to demand that a special tax be imposed on shipments
of coal from Sunderland 2. At the end of the eighteenth century,
after coal mining in Great Britain began to expand, the coal operators of Newcastle and of Sunderland formed a combination to
control output and to regulate prices—known as " The Limitation
of the Vend "—which lasted from 1771 to 18443. During the
1
Coal was mined in England, Austria, Belgium and other parts of Europe
as far back as the tenth century. By the thirteenth century coal had assumed
some importance not only as a fuel for household use but also for use in certain
industries. As early as the sixteenth century coal from Newcastle was being
exported to France and was described as " that thing that France can no
more lyve without than the fyshe without water ". As is well known, however,
the impetus to the modern development of the coal-mining industry was
given by the application of coke to the smelting of iron in the early part of
the eighteenth century and by the invention of the steam engine in 1769.
See I. LUBIN: " T h e Coal Industry", Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences,
New York, Vol. 3.
2
See D. J. WILLIAMS: Capitalist Combination in the Coal Industry, London,
1924, p. 25.
3
Ibid.
CR. I.
1
— 2 —
early days of the Industrial Revolution, British consumers were
already complaining about high prices of coal and about the sale
of coal at lower prices abroad than at home. As to labour conditions in coal mines during the first half of the nineteenth century,
they were characterised by many of the worst features of early
nineteenth-century industrialism: excessively long hours of particularly laborious toil; the employment of women and children
at tasks beyond their strength, and lack of even elementary
devices for safety. The efforts of the mine workers of those days, in
Great Britain, France and Belgium, to improve their conditions
through their first trade unions, and the beginnings of legislation
to regulate employment of women and young persons underground,
are matters of history which have been fully recorded.
The rapid growth of coal output in Great Britain towards the
middle of the century led economists and others to take thought
of the need for its conservation. This was the theme of W. Stanley
Jevons' famous book on The Coal Question which appeared in 1865 1.
Jevons was primarily concerned with driving home to the British
people the need of conserving a rich but wasting national asset,
upon which the industrial wealth of the country was based. Jevons
argued that the industrial development of England could not
continue as rapidly as in the preceding half-century because as the
richer and more accessible coal seams were gradually exhausted,
the costs of coal, both as a raw material and fuel, would rise, thus
reducing Great Britain's competitive advantages. In his concern
over this, Jevons welcomed the growing use of fuel substitutes for
coal and the movement towards greater economy in the industrial
uses of coal. He did not believe, however, that these developments
would suffice to offset the drain on coal and the cost-raising effects
of the " commercial " exhaustion of coal resources.
Jevons' book created a stir, and a Royal Commission was
appointed in England in 1871 to investigate the question. This
Commission found Jevons' apprehensions unjustified, though it
recommended some measures for the conservation of British coal
resources. The discovery of new coal deposits in England in
the last quarter of the nineteenth century and the rapid growth
of the coal-mining industry not only in Great Britain but in the
United States, Germany and elsewhere, made Jevons' book appear
unduly pessimistic and his prognosis something of a false prophecy.
Nevertheless, Jevons' basic theses that cheap coal is one of the
1
A third and revised edition appeared in 1906.
— 3 —
foundations of modern industrial life and that the conservation of
coal resources is necessary were proved correct by later
developments.
II.
PRE-WAR CONDITIONS
During the years from 1870 to the outbreak of the World War
in 1914, the coal-mining industry had a rapid growth in many
countries. The development of iron and steel manufacturing, the
expansion of railway systems, the increasing use of electric power
and of artificial gas for industrial and domestic purposes, the great
growth of population in Europe and the Americas—in brief, all the
factors which made for the expansion of the industrial system and
for the growth of world economy acted to increase the demand for
coal and to enhance the importance of coal in the industrial
economy. In response to the increasing demand for fuel, the coalmining industry made big strides towards higher levels of output
not only in Great Britain but also in such countries as the United
States, Germany, France, Belgium and the Austro-Hungarian
Empire. The growing demand of many countries for coal also led
to a large increase in coal exports, particularly from Great Britain,
but also from Germany and the United States \
It is therefore understandable why the three or four decades
before the World War are usually presented as a smooth and easy
period for the coal-mining industry of the world. Such a picture
overlooks, however, the fact that the industry was already then
beginning to struggle with problems some of which foreshadow
the economic and social problems of to-day. One of the most
important of these problems grew out of the tendency, already
noticeable at that time, towards short-run " over-capacity " due to
the rapid opening of new mining districts and to the serious lags
in the process by which output, prices, profits and wages were
brought into balance through the play of " free competition ". Even
in Great Britain, where coal mining on the whole fared well under
the regime of " free competition ", the collieries had to contend
from time to time with violent fluctuations in prices which led
to many conflicts between employers and workers, so that scheme
after scheme was put forward from 1850 on for the regulation of
the industry either by the Government or by combinations among
1
From an average of 8.5 million long tons in 1861-1865, British exports
of raw coal (including bunker fuel) increased to an average of 87.8 million
long tons in 1909-1913. See H. Stanley JEVONS: The British Coal Trade,
1915, p. 676.
— 4 —
employers 1. Although none of the schemes for amalgamation
and control which were put forth before 1900 could be carried out
(owing to differences in costing, structural differences in mines,
problems of mine valuation, individualistic attitude of operators,
etc.), similar attempts were made from 1900 to 1914, but with
similar lack of success.
In other countries too, e.g. the United States, Germany, France
and Belgium, the first organisations of colliery operators to cope
with the problems of the industry were formed during this period.
It was in Germany that these problems made themselves particularly felt and led to the formation of the great regional coal
cartels of the Ruhr, Aachen, Upper Silesia, etc. Many students
of the coal industry have recounted the history of the struggles
in the German coal-mining industry between 1879 and 1893—of
price wars between small and large collieries, between " pure "
coal mines (financially autonomous) and " factory " mines (owned
by iron and steel works), between mine operators and wholesale
merchants, of experiments in price agreements and marketing
associations, etc.—which finally culminated in the formation of
the Rhenish-Westphalian Coal Syndicate. This history needs no
retelling, here 2. But it is worth noting the coincidence in time
(1890-1893), of the formation of the Rhenish-Westphalian Syndicate, the organisation of the Comité Central des Houillères in
France, the first steps towards coal amalgamations in Great
Britain, and the financial integration of anthracite coal mining in
the United States.
The other important problems, or series of problems, which the
coal-mining industry had to face before 1914 were concerned with
the status of the colliery workers. From 1860 on the coal miners
in all countries carried on active campaigns—often bitter and
violent in character—for the improvement of labour standards in
the industry. The problems which called for .adjustment either
by collective agreements or through legislation were many and
complex—safety, true weighing, methods of wage payment,
abolition of the " truck system ", restriction of employment of
young persons, the reduction of hours of work (then ranging in
1
Schemes which especially attracted public attention were advanced by
Sir George Elliot, one of the most important colliery owners in England, in
1888 and again in 1893. See D. J. WILLIAMS: Op. cit., pp. 60-61.
2
See A. H. STOCKDER: Regulating an Industri/, New York, 1932; Francis
WALKER: Monopolistic Combinations in the German Coal Industry, New York,
1904; M. BAUMONT: La Grosse Industrie Allemande et le Charbon, Paris, 1928;
H. LÜTHGEN: Das Rheinisch-Westfälische Kohlen-Syndikat in der Vorkriegs-,
Kriegs- und Nachkriegszeit und seine Hauptprobleme, Leipzig, 1926.
— 5 —
some countries between 10 and 12 a day), accident compensation, etc., etc. In practically all countries the coal-mining industry
was rocked every few years by widespread strikes (due most
often to cuts in wages following upon a fall in sales prices) involving
large losses to the industry and great disturbances in economic
and social life 1. After 1900, however, and until 1914, there was
a steady movement in most countries to enlarge the legislation
for regulating the conditions of work in coal mines—a movement
which greatly improved the position of the workers with regard
to safety, hours of work, and wages. In Great Britain this prewar movement reached its culmination in the Coal Mines Act of
1911 and in the Minimum Wage Act of 1912. Significant progress
in legislation was also made in other coal-producing countries.
The steady growth of the industry and the progress of mine
labour legislation between 1900 and 1914 explain the optimistic
tone which prevailed in the industry on the eve of the war in
most countries, particularly in Great Britain. In a study of the
British coal trade written at that time 2, a son of the author of
The Coal Question, after examining the various factors bearing on
the demand for coal in home and foreign markets, felt justified
in concluding that British coal consumption and exports were
bound to continue to rise. He wrote: " I cannot but think that
our children's children will live to see a vast export trade in coal,
much more t h a n double the present figure which is already
approaching 100 million tons per annum " 3.
III.
THE
EFFECTS OF THE W O R L D
WAR
When the World War broke out, there had been established a
sort of equilibrium in the coal-mining industries of the different
countries as well as in international coal markets. Although the
national economic and social problems sketched above were far
from solution in any country, they were not very acute. Nor
did the competitive struggle for foreign coal markets give rise to
serious difficulties. Although other countries, above all Germany
1
The largest strikes during this period were as follows: in Great Britain
in 1893; in Germany in 1889 and 1905; in Belgium in 1890; in France in 1902;
in the United States in 1897 and 1902. See Coal Mine Labor in Europe,
12th Special Report of the Commissioner of Labor, Washington, 1905.
2
H. Stanley JEVONS: The British Coal Trade, London, 1915.
3
H. Stanley JEVONS: Op. cit., pp. 750-751. Compare the forecasts of Jevons
of exports of 172 million tons in 1931 with actual exports as given in Chapter VI
of this volume.
— 6—
and the United States, had become important as exporters of
coal, export shipments from Great Britain were steadily increasing 1.
The exigencies of the World War produced profound disturbances
in the coal-mining industry in the different countries and in the
world coal trade as well. All the belligerent Powers experienced
a shortage of coal for their own use and were unable to meet
the demand for coal from their foreign customers. The problem
in each of the warring countries was to utilise coal-mining facilities
to the fullest possible extent to supply the munitions and armaments
industries, the railways, the merchant marine, etc.; household
consumers and non-war industries were left to adjust themselves
to the situation as best they could. Although new coal mines were
opened to meet the growing demand, there was a decided shortage
of coal in most countries and prices tended to soar high. To cope
with this extraordinary situation, the coal-mining industry in
practically all the belligerent countries was placed under governmental control for the purpose of stimulating production, rationing
output among consumers and fixing coal prices. Special agencies
were created to carry out these policies of control 2.
Just as far-reaching were the changes wrought by the war in
the world coal trade. As British coal shipments to the Far East
and other parts of Asia were shut off, coal-mining facilities were
considerably enlarged in such countries as Australia, China, India,
Japan and the Union of South Africa. Even more important was
the fact that the coal-mining capacity of the United States was
greatly expanded in order to provide for its own enlarged industrial
needs and also to supply European and South American countries.
Certain European neutrals such as Sweden and Switzerland began
the systematic development of their water-power resources. Other
European neutrals, such as Spain and the Netherlands, were led to
exploit their home coal deposits on a larger scale than ever before.
In general, the repercussions of the World War on the world
coal industry and trade gave rise to four main developments.
1
Of world exports of raw coal in 1912, Great Britain furnished over 47 per
cent., Germany more than 23 per cent., and the United States almost 15 per
cent.—altogether 85 per cent, of the total. Of the export trade seaborne,
however, Great Britain furnished almost 71 per cent., Germany somewhat less
than 11 per cent., and the United States a little more than 4 per cent.—
altogether 86 per cent, of the world total. Ibid., pp. 678, 681.
2
In Great Britain coal mining was placed under complete Government
control in 1917: coal consumption was rationed, wages fixed, profits limited,
exports strictly regulated; in the United States the coal industry was under
the regulation of the Fuel Administration from 1917 to 1919; in Germany
the Decree of 31 March 1917 placed the coal-mining industry under the
complete control of the Government.
— 7 —
First, facilities for mining coal were expanded in many countries
in response to temporary military exigencies but not in relation
to the long-run requirements of home and foreign markets. Second,
the movement towards financial combinations, marketing schemes
and cartels was stimulated as a result of government intervention
and control. Third, the pre-war network of trading relations
between coal-exporting and coal-importing countries was recast
and its equilibrium upset. Fourth, the character and scope of
war-time governmental controls tended to widen the trend towards
legislative intervention for the regulation of labour standards.
These developments were to outlast the war and to affect profoundly the further course of the industry.
IV.
POST-WAR DEVELOPMENTS
The effects of the World War were complicated by the political and.
economic developments of the immediate post-war years. During
the boom of 1919-1920, the continued restrictions on the export
of British coal, the slow recovery of coal output in France as a
result of the devastation of the mines; the heavy fall in coal production in Germany as a result of territorial changes and industrial
dislocations, the drop in United States production owing to strikes
and labour unrest; the irregularities in the deliveries of coal from
Germany to France, Belgium and Italy, under the reparations
agreement—all combined to produce a great coal shortage the
world over. This shortage resulted in " famine " prices of coal
and coke and further stimulated the development of new mining
facilities, the search for substitute fuels, and the progress of fuel
economies. In 1921-1922, as a result of the industrial depression,
the demand for coal was greatly reduced and coal prices collapsed.
The effects of the depression were offset to some extent by
such factors as the miners' strike in the United States in 1922
and the continued difficulties in the mining industry of Germany
and France. An first important result of the shortage was that Great
Britain was enabled to resume export shipments on a large scale1.
Another result was that, with the partition of Upper Silesia in
1922, an agreement was entered into by Poland and Germany
by which the latter was to take six million tons of Polish coal
annually for a period of three years. The third result was to
hasten the pace at which France undertook to restore the devastated
1
Restrictions on coal exports were removed in Great Britain in July 1921.
— 8 —
colliery facilities of the Nord and the Pas-de-Calais1. Then, in 1923,
came the French occupation of the Ruhr (resulting in a temporaryshut-down of the Rhenish-Westphalian mines) which had the
effect of favouring British and Polish coal exports for the time
being and of stimulating the further development of the lignite
mining industry in Germany.
The confused conditions in the coal trade and the general labour
unrest due to the difficulties of post-war readjustment stimulated
a widespread effort towards a comprehensive reform of the coalmining industry. Coal commissions were set up by the Governments of several countries to study the economic and social problems
of the industry 2, and to propose measures for their solution. The
idea advanced at this time by the coal miners' organisations and
supported in large measure by various public commissions was
for the nationalisation or socialisation of the coal-mining industry
in the various countries concerned3. It was assumed that such reform,
while primarily in the interests of the national economy, would also
help to bring order into the international marketing of coal.
The work of the coal commissions helped to fix public interest
on the underlying problems of the coal-mining industry, and some
practical results followed. The large proposals for the nationalisation of the industry were not put into effect, or, where enacted
into law, resulted in arrangements which were far from the original
intentions 4 . But partly as a result of the work of the coal commissions, partly owing to the pressure of their own organisations 5,
the coal miners in several countries obtained a shorter working
week, some readjustment in wages, and other concessions 6. Inter1
From 29 million metric tons in 1921 and 32 million metric tons in 1922,
France's
output of coal rose to 39 million tons in 1923.
2
The so-called Sankey Commission in Great Britain in 1919; the coal
commissions of 1918-1920 in Germany; the United States Coal Commission
in 1922-1923, etc.
3
Although the members of the Sankey Commission could not agree on
any exact plan for organising the colliery industry, their reports were unanimous in recommending that the Government acquire ownership over all the
coal resources of Great Britain. In Germany the commissions not only recommended socialisation of coal mining, but legislation with this end nominally
in view was enacted in 1919. In the United States the Coal Commission of
1923 recommended that anthracite and bituminous coal mining be subjected
tò federal regulation.
4
Thus in Germany the practical effect of the Socialisation Act of 1919
was to give a compulsory status to the pre-existing regional cartels.
6
Large and general coal strikes took place in France in 1919; in the United
States in 1919 and 1922; in Great Britain in 1921.
6
The coal miners of France obtained the eight-hour day in 1919; in Germany
the eight-hour day was introduced on 1 January 1924. In Great Britain the
Government put into effect the Sankey Commission's recommendation for a
seven-hour day and for increased wage rates.
— 9 —
nationally, the adoption of the Dawes Plan in September 1924 laid
the basis for regularising the reparation deliveries of coal from
Germany to France, Belgium and Italy. Towards the end of 1924
it thus seemed as if the chaotic period in the history of the coalmining industry had passed and that an orderly development of
the industry on a world scale would begin.
V.
" COAL CRISIS " AND " COAL WAR "
The general conditions of prosperity, industrial expansion and
relative political stability which characterised the period from
1925 to 1929 undoubtedly helped the coal-mining industry to
recover from some of the worst difficulties of the immediate postwar years. By 1927 the production of coal exceeded for the first
time that of 1913, and in 1929 both world coal output and the
world coal trade had reached levels somewhat higher than those
of 1913 l .
However, despite this improvement, it was during 1925-1929
that the idea of a general malaise in the world coal-mining industry
and the concept of a world " coal problem " calling for international
action began to gain ground. In brief outline, the world " coal
problem " began to be conceived as the emergence—owing to the
slow development of the demand for coal—of large margins of
excess mining capacity in Great Britain, the United States, Germany, Poland and other countries, and as a tendency towards a
decline in coal exports which was of particular gravity to the coal
industries of Great Britain and Poland.
The main developments which affected the coal industry of the
world during these years can be only briefly summarised here.
In 1925 the main events were (1) the granting by the British
Government of a subsidy of £23,350,000 to the British colliery
owners to make possible the maintenance of wage rates and
profits, and (2) the imposition by Germany, as soon as the agreement of 1922 came to an end, of an embargo on coal imports
from Poland. The British subsidy continued for nine months
and helped the industry to maintain the volume of output and
exports at higher levels than would otherwise have been possible.
But the subsidy also aroused coal-mine operators in competing
countries to seek ways and means of counteracting its effects on
1
See Chapters IV and VI.
— 10 —
the export trade. Reparation deliveries by Germany set on foot
a vigorous movement to mechanise and rationalise the industry \
As a result, mining costs fell and German coal output and exports
were increased. At the same time, as a result of the embargo
imposed by Germany, Poland began to seek outlets for her coal
in Western Europe, Scandinavian and Mediterranean markets,
thus increasing competitive pressure in all of these markets.
The competitive tension created in the world coal market during
1925 was eased for many countries by the outbreak of the great
British coal dispute of 1926. The ten months of the stoppage gave
other coal-producing countries the opportunity to increase their
foreign sales of coal and to find new outlets for their exports.
Germany, Poland, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and the
United States supplied coal to Great Britain herself and to former
customers of Great Britain. There seems but little doubt that
this dispute wrought many lasting changes in the channels of the
world coal trade.
With the cessation of the British stoppage, the situation again
abruptly changed. Great Britain vigorously entered the world
coal market to re-establish her former outlets and to regain her
former customers 2. The over-expansion of coal-mining capacity
which had been going on for some time but which was pushed
further during 1926 began now to make itself felt in aggravated
form. During 1927-1928 the upswing of industrial activity
brought only a moderate increase in the demand for coal, and the
struggle for markets reached its keenest point. For two years
the coal literature of the world was filled with discussions of the
" coal crisis " and of the " coal war ". By 1928, not only the
European countries, but the United States, Australia, South Africa,
the U.S.S.R., and India were affected by this " coal crisis " in
greater or less degree 3.
By 1928 it was clear that the efforts of individual coal-mining
countries to profit by the difficulties of others could lead at best
to temporary advantages which merely aggravated the general
1
This movement was accompanied by considerable unemployment among
the2 workers and by a prolongation of the working day.
The loss of the dispute by the mine workers resulted in lengthening hours
of work from 1 daily to 7% or 8 (the 8-hour day was authorised by the Act
of 9 July 1926) and in wage cuts below the levels that had been assured by
the subsidies of 1925.
3
See articles by Mack EASTMAN : " A Brief Survey of the Coal Crisis Literature " and " The European Coal Crisis " in the International Labour Review
f or May 1926 and February 1928.
— 11 —
tension everywhere and seriously reacted on the welfare of the
national coal economies. As a result, there followed on the one
hand, efforts towards protective policies and towards schemes for
regulating the industry nationally; on the other hand, there
began more extensive discussions of possible international measures
and policies. In 1927 and 1929 the League of Nations made
enquiries into the coal industry and issued reports in which the
main international proposals for dealing with the " coal problem "
were summarised as follows 1:
(a) That international agreements between producers should
be arranged concerning output, markets and prices;
(b) That a special international committee representative of
all interests—Governments, employers, miners, merchants,
and consumers—should be set up;
(c)
That measures should be taken for assimilating, if not,
equalising, wages, hours, and the social conditions of labour;
(d) That the existing artificial restrictions to trade in coal and
artificial stimuli to production should be abolished.
These discussions failed to bring any immediate action. The
industrial boom of 1929 affected favourably also the coal industry:
the demand for coal in domestic and foreign markets rose to
higher levels resulting in profitable prices. Coal operators in the
main coal-mining countries became disinterested in proposals for
international action with regard to the " coal problem ".
VI.
EFFECTS OF THE GREAT DEPRESSION
Following the collapse of world prosperity in the autumn of
1929, it became evident t h a t the improvement in the coal industry
during 1928-1929 had been of a temporary nature. The Great
Depression played havoc with the welfare of colliery owners and
colliery workers throughout the world. Superimposed upon the
effects of fuel substitutes and fuel economies which continued to
contract the demand for coal, the cyclical down-swing of industrial
activity reduced the production and consumption of coal to
unprecedented low levels.
1
See Memorandum on Coal, Economic and Financial Section, League of
Nations, Geneva, 1927, Vols. 1 and 2; The Problem of the Coal Industry,
Economic Organisation, the League of Nations, Geneva, 1929; The Coal
Problem, Economic Committee, League of Nations, Geneva, 1932.
— 12 —
Partly to meet this situation in the coal-mining industry, partly
because of general economic conditions, measures were taken in
all coal-producing countries to reorganise the coal industry on a
more stable basis. On the other hand, a movement gained headway
everywhere to restrict imports and to stimulate coal exports by
various means, such as quota limitations, export bounties, preferential agreements, currency manipulation, etc. Altogether,
the state of the world coal industry became more disordered from
year to year and labour standards of colliery workers deteriorated.
It will suffice here merely to refer to the events of these years,
beginning with Great Britain's going off the gold standard in 1931
and ending with recent attempts at national reorganisation and
international action. Briefly, the movement begun long before 1929
towards combination and towards the public regulation of coal
output and prices assumed worldwide scope, carrying the industry
farther away from a regime of " free competition " to one of
control 1 . On the other hand, a new interest became manifest in
measures for regulating the marketing of coal internationally 2.
These developments are considered in detail in this Report 3 .
VII.
THE PART OF THE INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION
The post-war developments which have been outlined above
had serious adverse effects on labour standards of coal miners
in the main coal-producing countries. The rapid advance of
mechanisation and rationalisation, the falling volume of sales to
home and foreign markets and the low levels to which coal prices
dropped as a result of inter-district and international competition
resulted in wage reductions, lengthening of hours, extensive
unemployment and part-time employment 4. The efforts of the
workers to remedy national conditions by means of collective action,
at least before the beginning of the new industrial advance in
1933, were generally unsuccessful. Besides, the organised coal
miners came to the conclusion that national remedies for the difficulties of the industry should be supplemented by international
1
For example, the Mines Act of 1930, as subsequently amended, in Great
Britain; the Bituminous Coal Acts of 1935 and 1937 in the United States;
the reorganisation of coal mining in Germany in 1933 and 1934; the Coal
Industry Control Act of 1936 in France.
2
As manifest in the Anglo-Polish Coal Convention of 1934 renewed in 1937
and in the International Coke Cartel of 1937.
3
See particularly Chapters VI, VII and IX.
4
See Chapter VIII and Vol. II.
— 13 —
action through the League of Nations and the International Labour
Organisation.
In 1925 the International Miners' Federation adopted a resolution
in which competition in the coal trade was said to be embittered
by differences in working conditions in the principal coal-producing
countries and which called for " the standardisation of the working
conditions of miners on an international basis ". The resolution
requested that the International Labour Office make a study of
working conditions in the coal mines.
In June 1925 the International Labour Conference at its Seventh
Session adopted a resolution requesting the Governing Body to
consider the conditions under which the International Labour
Office could carry out an investigation into wages and hours of
work in coal mines. In October 1925 the Governing Body instructed
the Office to proceed with such an enquiry. The subject presented
considerable difficulties and it took some time to elaborate the
methods by which wages and hours in the different coal-mining
countries could be studied on a comparative basis. As a result of
this work the Office published in 1928 its first study dealing with
the coal-mining industry, entitled Wages and Hours of Work in
the Coal-Alining Industry 1.
But as the " coal crisis " became aggravated and its worldwide
character was more clearly perceived, two international miners'
organisations requested the League of Nations and the International
Labour Organisation in 1928 to consider immediate international
action. As pointed out above, the Economic Organisation of the
League made a report on the subject in 1929. The same year the
Tenth Assembly of the League referred the question to the Governing Body of the International Labour Office with the suggestion
that it consider the advisability of convening a preparatory
technical conference which would suggest such specific questions
bearing on conditions of employment in coal mines as might be
made the subject of international agreement.
In response to this proposal, a Preparatory Technical Conference
on the coal-mining industry was held in Geneva in January 1930.
On the recommendation of this technical conference, the Governing
Body of the International Labour Office placed the question of the
reduction of hours in coal mines on the agenda of the Fourteenth
Session of the International Labour Conference in 1930. In 1931,
at the Fifteenth Session of the International Labour Conference,
1
For further details see Vol. II of this Report.
— 14 —
a Draft Convention was adopted limiting hours of work in coal
mines to 7% hours a day \
Although each of the seven principal coal-producing countries
of Europe voted for the Draft Convention in 1931, practical difficulties arose with regard to its ratification. During 1933-1934,
when the general reduction of hours of work was under discussion,
the possibility of adapting to the coal-mining industry the principle
of the 40-hour week was considered. Thus, the question of the
reduction of hours of work in coal mines was again brought up
on the agenda of the Nineteenth Session of the International
Labour Conference in 1935 2 . A Draft Convention was put
forward which limited hours of work in coal mines to seven hours
and 45 minutes on any day and to 38 hours and 45 minutes in
any week.
The attempt to settle the question by a single discussion was
defeated, and it went over to the next Session of the annual
Conference. In June 1936, at the Twentieth Session of the International Labour Conference the Draft Convention did not obtain
a two-thirds majority and therefore failed to pass 3.
The 1936 Session of the International Labour Conference
nevertheless decided that the question should be considered again
as soon as possible. With this end in view, it adopted a resolution, introduced by the Government delegates of France and the
United States, in favour of calling a tripartite technical conference
on the reduction of hours of work in the coal-mining industry.
In May 1937 the Governing Body, in accordance with the above
resolution, decided to convene the proposed conference and
instructed the Office to prepare a report on the coal-mining industry.
VIII. THE PRESENT REPORT
In accordance with the decision of the Governing Body, the
present Report aims to give not only a survey of the legislation
on the regulation of hours of work in the coal-mining industry,
1
See International Labour Conference, Fourteenth Session, 1930, Report
I I I : Hours of Work in Coal Mines; and International Labour Conference,
Fifteenth Session, 1931, Report I I : Hours of Work in Coal Mines.
2
International Labour Conference, Nineteenth Session, Geneva, 1935,
Report VI: Reduction of Hours of Work, Vol. V, Coal Mines.
3
International Labour Conference, Twentieth Session, Geneva, 1936,
Report VI: Reduction of Hours of Work in Coal Mines; and Report of Proceedings.
— 15 —
but also an analysis of the economic and social problems of the
industry in their bearing on the problem of hours of work. In
preparing this Report, it was found that a great deal of data
existed on various aspects of the industry; also t h a t the studies
on the subject made by the League of Nations, by other
agencies and by individual students had brought to light many
of the underlying factors which explain the difficulties which the
industry at present faces. It was also found, however, that,
valuable as these studies are, there was need for a new study
which would bring together in comprehensive form the available
information on recent developments in the world coal-mining
industry.
This Report attempts to fill the existing need by treating the
subject in two parts. Part I is concerned with the economics
of the production, consumption and trade in coal, and with the
relation of prices and costs to labour standards. Part II surveys
the social developments of the industry: wages and earnings,
employment and unemployment, social services, paid holidays, and
hours of work.
Several main generalisations are suggested by this Report.
First, although the total volume of the world coal trade is but a
small portion of the total volume of world coal output—not over
10 per cent.—the coal trade is of vital importance to the national
economies of a number of coal-exporting and coal-importing
countries (Great Britain, Germany, Poland, France, Sweden,
Italy, etc.). Second, the basic problems of the coal trade—
domestic and foreign—grow out of a persisting unbalance between
the factors affecting the supply of and demand for coal. Third,
the coal-mining industry in many countries has to contend with
difficulties of inter-district competition which, serious in themselves, also influence directly and indirectly the international
situation. Fourth, owing to this fact, the movement towards
the integration of collieries and towards national schemes of economic
and social control has been of basic importance also for the recent
developments to regulate the marketing of coal internationally.
Fifth, because of the intertwining of home market competition
with competition in foreign markets, efforts to deal with the basic
problems of the coal industry and particularly with those affecting
labour standards, to be successful, call for simultaneous action
both on the national and international plane. Sixth, despite the
recovery of output, sales and income since 1933, the underlying
tendencies which have vexed the coal-mining industry for nearly
— 16 —
two decades have not disappeared, and their persistence is a
standing challenge to those interested in the welfare of the
industry.
It is hoped that this Report may give a picture of the coalmining industry in its international aspects which will be helpful
in the search for a proper solution of its various problems and
especially of the problem of the reduction of hours of work with
which the Tripartite Technical Conference is concerned.
CHAPTER II
THE COAL-MINING INDUSTRY
Although at first glance the term " coal-mining industry "
appears self-explanatory, at least three major problems with regard
to its meaning emerge upon closer examination:
(1) Coal is not a simple, homogeneous commodity. The many
varieties of coal which are mined differ greatly in their chemical,
physical and structural composition, and thus also in their economic
usefulness. In view of this diversity, the question is how far and
for what reasons may coal be regarded economically as a single
product ?
(2) Coal may be, and is, mined by different methods or variations
of methods. These technological differences involve important
economic effects with regard to costing. Should these various
methods be included under a common concept of mining ?
(3) It is common for collieries in various countries to engage
not only in the extraction of raw coal, but also in productive
activities of a supplementary character. Which of these supplementary activities, if any, shall be regarded as belonging to coal
mining and which shall be excluded ?
I. THE VARIETIES OF COAL
It is proposed to define coal mining so as to include the working
of all deposits of solid hydrocarbon fuels from lignite as the lowest
" rank " of coal to anthracite as the highest " rank ". Peat is
thus excluded. Save for a few local areas (to be found, for example,
in Germany, Ireland, Poland and the Soviet Union) the working
of peat bogs is of negligible industrial importance, while the gathering of adequate statistical information would be extremely
difficult \
1
fuel.
In some countries, peat is used more for soil improvement than as a
This is true, for example, of the United States.
CR. I.
2
— 18 —
TABLE
CHARACTERISTICS
I.
OF
As established b y t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l
t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Geological Survey, 1921 ; and t h e R e g n a u l t (The several ranks of coal shade
Class
(International
Geological
Congress, 1913)
Calorific value:
B.T.U. (a) .
Calories (b)
Fuel ratio (c)
. . .
or
Split volatile ratio (d)
Mean chemical composition (per cent.) of:
C
H
O+ N+ S
Range (per cent.) of:
"Volatiles (e)
. . .
Fixed carbon (e) .
Moisture (/)
. . .
Anthracite
Semi-anthracite
Semi-bituminous
Medium rank
14,500-15,000
8,000-8,330
15,000-15,500
8,330-8,600
15,200-16,000
8,400-8,900
14,000-16,000
7,700-8,800
12 and over
6-12
4-6
3-5
93-95
2-4
3-5
90-93
4-4.5
3-5.5
80-90
4.5-5
5.5-12
75-90
4.5-5.5
6-15
below 8
above 92
8-15
85-92
15-20
80-85
18-26
74-82
Weakly coking or
non-coherent
Generally makes
very dense coke
Coking properties . .
Does not coke,
pulverulent
Colour
Black, lustrous
Black, lustrous
Black, lustrous
Black, lustrous or
dull
Flame
Very short, blue
Very short, somewhat luminous
Short, luminous
Medium to long
luminous
Smoke
Smokeless
Conchoidal
ture
Nearly smokeless
Very little smoke
Distinct prismatic
cleavage
Usually
distinct
cubical cleavage
Fracture or cleavage
frac-
Conchoidal
ture
frac-
Smoky
Texture
Hard
Hard but friable
Friable
Soft to hard
Action on weathering
Very
resistant,
chemically and
physically
Resistant, chemically and physically
Chemically resistant, often disintegrates rapidly
into small prismatic fragments
Chemically little
affected, but disintegrates slowly into prismatic fragments
Chief uses
Domestic and central
heating ;
malting kilns;
producer-gas
Steam raising; domestic
heating ;
cement
works
Steam raising; domestic heating ;
bunker fuel for
steamships
Coke manufacture
and steam raising
(a)
(b)
, .
(c)
(d)
Heat units to raise 1 lb.
Heat units to raise 1 lb.
Fixed carbon
. ,
—
, ash-free,
of water 1» F.
of water l u C.
.
, . , , „
,,,_.,_
dry coal; of signiflcance mainly for high ranks.
; of signiflcance mainly for low ranks
\ 013.L116S
Fixed carbon + Volatiles
(Hygroscopic moisture + % Volatiles)
(e) Based on ash-free, dry coal.
(/) Of significance only for low ranks.
ì
19
THE
DIFFERENT
RANKS OF
COAL
Geological Congress, 1913;
Grüner grouping as modified by Bone and Himus, 1936.
into one another imperceptibly)
Bituminous
Sub-bituminous
Lignite or
brown coal
" Gas " coal
Low r a n k
C
B3
Di
D2
—
12,000-16,000
6,600-7,800
12,000-14,000
6,600-7,800
10,000-13,000
5,500-7,200
7,000-11,000
4,000-6,000
2-3
1.5-2
1.2-1.5
below 1.2
below 1.2
—
—
2.5-3.3
1.8-2.5
below 1.8
84-89
5.0-5.6
5.5-11.0
80-85
a b o u t 5.6
10-15
70-80
4.5- 6
18-20
60-75
6-6.5
20-30
45-65
6-6.8
30-35
26-32
68-74
32-40
60-68
40-45
55-60
(5-10)
Suitable for dense
" metallurgical "
coke
Suitable for soft
porous " gas "
coke
Generally does not
coke, non-coherent
Black, lustrous or
dull
Black, lustrous or
dull
Black, tending to
dull
Brown or yellow
streak, b u t sometimes black
Brown, dull, b u t
sometimes black
Long, burns freely
Long, burns freely
Long, burns very
freely
Long
Long
Smoky
Smoky
Smoky
" Coking " coal
BÜ
—
Soft to hard
Coke manufacture
Resinous fracture
Soft t o hard
Gas making
—
Soft to h a r d
Reverberatory furnaces; steam locomotives
above 45
above 45
below 55
below 55
(10-20)
(20-60)
Does n()t coke,
non-co herent
Smoky
Smoky
Conchoidal or cubical fracture
E a r t h y and dull
Soft
Soft
Slacks into thin
plates parallel to
bedding with loss
of heating value
Slacks very quickly
in air, forming
powder or thin
platy fragments
with marked loss
of heating value
Domestic heating ;
steam raising
SOURCES: T W E L F T H INTERNATIONAL GEOLOGICAL CONGRESS, The Coal Resources oflhe World, Toronto,
1913, Vol. I, p p . xi-xiii; E . V. ZIMMERMAN, Worid Resources and Industries, New York,
1933, p . 454; W . A. B O N E and G. W . H I M U S , Coal, Its Constitution and Uses, London
1936, p p . 38-43.
— 20 —
The range of coals to be considered therefore includes the following categories: anthracite, semi-anthracite, semi-bituminous, bituminous, sub-bituminous, brown coal/lignite.
A description of these classes of coal is presented in table I.
In so far as coals can be rated in terms of one common property,
their most significant property is calorific (heat) value as measured
in terms, for example, of British thermal units (B.T.U.s) or metric
calories l. The calorific value of coal is mainly dependent upon
fixed carbon content (the percentage of fixed carbon in the total
chemical composition) and fuel ratio (the proportion between
fixed carbon and the volatile materials) 2 . Although the fixed
carbon content and the fuel ratio both rise in ascending the ranks
from lignite to anthracite, thus roughly equating rank with calorific
value, many of the higher grades of bituminous coal are superior
to many of the anthracite grades in yield of B.T.U.
Coals are ordinarily valued on the basis of their " proximate "
chemical analyses which customarily include the percentages of
fixed carbon, volatile matter, ash, sulphur and water 3. As the
chemical composition varies, so to a large degree vary not only
the thermal properties of the coal but its other specific properties
as well; for example, its suitability for coking purposes; its steamraising or gas-making capacities; its convenience for household
heating, etc. But chemical composition is not the only element
which determines the significant properties of coal. Other elements,
physical and structural, are also important; for example, the coal's
specific gravity, its friability, its fusability, its tendency, if any,
to slack upon weathering, etc. Table II shows the proximate
analysis of some representative coals.
As shown in table II, the coals of commerce are distinguished
not only by their fuel value but also by their suitability for specific
consumption purposes. Some coals (for example, the anthracite
of Eastern Pennsylvania) excel for household use; other coals (for
1
One B.T.U. is the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of
one pound of water by one degree Fahrenheit. One metric calorie is the
amount of heat required to raise one kilogram of water by one degree centigrade. 1 metric calorie = 3.96 B.T.U.s; 1 B.T.U. = 0.252 metric calories.
The term calories is generally used, however, to express the heat for raising
one lb. of water by 1 degree C, that is, 1 calorie = 1.8 B.T.U.s; 1 B.T.U.
0.55 calories. The number of B.T.U.s in a pound of coal i s a rough measure
of the heating properties of that coal, for it expresses the quantity of heat
which would be yielded upon theoretically complete combustion.
2
Also, for the lower ranks of coal, upon the " split-volatile " ratio which
takes account of moisture and the carbon contents of the volatile materials.
3
Frequently, however, the analyses are given ash-free, because the presence
or absence of ash is a quality independent of " rank ".
t.
— 21 —
example, the Admiralty steam types of South Wales) are especially
well adapted for bunkering purposes on steamships; other coals
(for example, the well-known. Durham types) are particularly
suited for the manufacture of gas thanks to their richness in specific
chemical elements; still other coals (for example, those of the
Ruhr basin, of Upper Silesia, and of the Connellsville basin) possess
those particular properties which serve to yield the best kinds of
metallurgical coke, etc.
Each of the different types of coal is further distinguished into
a great number of grades dependent largely on size. Anthracite
TABLE I I .
PROXIMATE CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF SELECTED
REPRESENTATIVE
COALS
Per cent, of
Type of coal
Best Admiralty steam (South
Wales)
Swansea Valley anthracite .
Yorkshire house coal . . .
Durham coking coal . . . .
Durham gas coal
Saar Basin coals 1
Ruhr Basin coals 2 . . . .
Polish Upper Silesia coals 3 .
Witbank Main Seam (Transvaal)
Cape Breton Island coking
coal
Peruvian steam c o a l . . . .
Alabama coking (Birmingham)
Idaho lignite (Goose Creek) .
Illinois bituminous (Vermillion county)
Pennsylvania anthracite . .
West Virginia semi-bituminous (New River) . . . .
Miike steam coal
Kai Ping coking coal . . .
Fixed
carbon
Volatile
material
83.4
90.5
61.2
67.9
64.7
47-60
50-72
45-62
Sulphur
Ash
Water
12.2
4.9
34.9
27.7
31.3
27-37
18-36
28-33
0.7
1.0
(1.5)
(0.6)
(0.9)
2.8
2.3
2.5
3.4
2.0
7-11
4-13
3-12
0.9
1.3
1.5
1.1
2.0
3-8
2-8
2-8
57.2
25.8
(0.5)
14.8
2.2
55.4
37.1
66.8
25.7
37.4
44.9
25.9
26.6
(2.9)
(1.5)
(2.5)
7.2
18.0
4.9
13.4
2.4
34.3
39.6
88.2
39.5
1.2
(4.0)
(0.9)
10.4
7.8
10.5
2.8
73.7
48.2
65.1
14.1
41.8
29.5
(0.8)
(3.7)
(0.7)
8.2
9.4
4.8
4.0
0.7
0.6
i These coals are well adapted for household, steam and railway utilisation.
2 Ruhr Basin produces, inter alia, excellent coking and gas coals, ranging from medium
to high volatile.
s The bulk of this coal is of first-class coking properties.
SOURCES: D. M. HOAB, The Coal Industry o) the World, U.S. Department of Commerce,
Washington, 1930, passim;
and TWELFTH INTEHNATIONAL GEOLOGICAL CONGRESS, The
Coal Resources of the World, Vol. I, 1913, passim.
coal, for example, is sized in descending order (United States) as
broken, egg, stove, nut, pea, buckwheat, rice, barley. The size
terms used in Great Britain are machine made cobbles, screened
— 22 —
cobbles, stove nuts, Paris nuts, French nuts, pea nuts, beans,
peas and grains. Bituminous coal is classified by size in the
United States, aside from run-of-mine (or through-and-through)
into lump or block, egg, nut, slack, etc. 1 Thus the student of the
coal market is confronted with a bewildering variety of grades,
qualities and sizes. Commercially, the world's coal markets
recognise hundreds and even thousands of individual classifications; the Rhenish Westphalian Coal Syndicate, for example,
classifies its output in no less than 1,400 marketing groups.
For some purposes, the several varieties of coal are not, and
could not, be competitive except under the most extraordinary
circumstances. Lignite and anthracite, in contrast to many bituminous types, possess no coking properties whatever; dry and lean
(low volatile) coals will hardly serve for manufacturing gas—a use
reserved for rich and fat coals (high volatile) ; because they clinker
at high temperatures or contain large percentages of sulphur or
phosphorus, many coals are largely shut out of specific uses in
metallurgy and in steam-raising.
On the other hand, for any of the heating and/or steam-raising
purposes which can be served by coal, its various ranks may all
be regarded as potential substitutes. If and where the economic
necessity were sufficiently stringent, lignite would be capable of
replacing bituminous in many uses, bituminous capable of replacing
anthracite; it is all a question at bottom of costs and convenience.
True, a thermal installation is almost always adapted so as to
obtain the most economical results from the use of one particular
coal or group of coals. As price and cost factors change, however,
there is ordinarily made available a considerable range of choice
within which the thermal apparatus may shift over from a higher
to a lower rank of coal, or vice versa. If the change in price and
cost factors is sufficiently profound and enduring, it may even
prove economical to re-adapt the equipment or to replace it.
As heat-producing and/or steam-raising agents, therefore, the
various ranks of coal from lignite through bituminous to anthracite
form a common competitive structure. In practice, the structure
1
In France, coals are classified by descending order of size (outside of
" t o u t v e n a n t " or run-of-the-mine), in mm., as:
Above 80: roches, pérats, grosses gaillettes, gailleterie et petite gailleterie ;
50-80: moyennes gaillettes, gailletins; 30-50: petites gaillettes, chatelles,
grosses braisettes, noix, têtes de moineaux; 10-30: braisettes, grenettes,
grains; 10 and under: fines ou menus. — FRANCE: Annales des mines,
13th series, Book 11, 1937, p. 203.
— 23 —
shows many breaks and gaps x : but it nevertheless remains true
t h a t many grades of coal can be potentially used by the same fuel
installations, and that the neighbouring grades of coal may displace
one another because of minor changes of price and availability.
In other uses than heating and steam-raising, many of the varieties
of coal are also in direct and indirect competition, though within
narrower limits. The qualifications for the chief uses of coal have
been summarised as follows:
The most general use to which coal is applied is for steam-raising.
For this purpose almost any grade of coal can be utilised, but preference
lies with those coals possessing high heat values and a low ash content.
Bunker coal
The coal utilised in the boiler furnaces of steamships is known as
bunker coal, that term being derived from the bins or bunkers close to
the boilers in which the coal is stored for use. While some grades of
coal are exceptionally qualified for steamship purposes, nevertheless
almost any fairly good bituminous coal with proper treatment may be
employed. The minimum qualifications for a really good steamship coal
are: volatile matter should not run over 30 per cent., and preferably
lower, down to 15 per cent. ; ash content should not exceed 9 per cent. ;
fusing point should not be less than 2,500° F. ; its heating value should
not be less than 14,000 British thermal units; it should be sufficiently
free burning to make stoking easy, without forced draft ; it should stand
storage without tendency to spontaneous combustion; and it should
stow well, about 42 cubic feet of space per long ton being the minimum.
Domestic coals
Coals for domestic purposes should be hard, firm, bright, and blocky
in appearance. As a general rule, the household trade demands
lump coal. It should be low in ash content and free burning. However, much depends on whether a smokeless variety
of coal is required. High, medium, and low volatile coals may be used.
. . . Coals for household utilisation should be loaded clean and free
from slacks and impurities.
Metallurgical coals
Coals for metallurgical purposes should be high in volatile matter and
fixed carbon, except for the smelting of ores other than iron, and should
be low in sulphur with a self-fluxing ash. They should possess a high
calorific value and have a low content of ferruginous ash. Hard coking
coals which at 900° C. yield between 20 and 32 per cent, of the volatile
matter are valued especially for the manufacture of metallurgical coke.
However, the expanding use of pulverised coal in metallurgical works
1
For example, municipal ordinances which forbid the burning of coals
which yield smoke excessively may give anthracite or smokeless bituminous
an unchallenged grip over particular markets; lignite coals, with their high
water content and low calorific value, which make for excessive transportation
costs, may find it impossible to penetrate distant markets except in the form
of briquettes; the fuel requirements of certain industries such as glass-making
and cement-making may place a premium upon coals which lend themselves
readily to pulverising, yield a minimum of ash and which burn cleanly.
— 24 —
undoubtedly will create a change in the market requirements for this
specific coal in the not distant future. . . .
By-product coals
Coals for by-product utilisation usually possess an average volatile
content varying from 15 to 38 per cent., but those ranging between 25 and
33 per cent, are preferred. When coals lower in volatile matter than 25 per
cent, or higher than 33 per cent, are used the desired percentage is
procured through mixing the low and high volatile coals. The ash
content should range between 4 and 8 per cent. ; sulphur not more than
1-1 y2 per cent. ; and phosphorus should not be higher than 0.02 per cent.
If the main product desired is gas, the coal selected should be rich in
gas yield with high calorific value and candle power. The best gas coals
are those yielding 32-38 per cent, of volatiles at 900° C. (reckoned on
the dry ashless coal) and a fairly
porous coke. It should not be friable
or liable to slack in handling 1.
Thus, on the whole, and allowing for those cases where industrial
requirements govern the type of coal to be consumed, it may be
said t h a t most coals are potentially capable, though in varying
degree, of fulfilling the same general functions: yielding heat,
raising steam, serving as a raw material of coke or gas, etc. In
the practical choice between the several coals which may be capable
of satisfying the same consumption purpose, the basic question is
to decide which as a fuel or raw material is most economical for
the given purpose. It follows that the prices of all grades of coal
are mutually sensitive, their sensitivity varying with the extent
to which the coals compete effectively in common consumption uses.
Because of the close sympathetic response of individual coal groups
to the same complex of price factors, it is proper to treat coal
mining as a single industry (of which anthracite, bituminous and
lignite are the major subdivisions) 2.
II.
THE
VARIETY OF MINING METHODS
It is proposed in the present Report to define coal mining so
as to include the two main methods of getting coal-—(1) strip or
open pit and (2) underground workings 3. In the open pit method
1
H. M. HOAR, The Coal Industry of the World, United States Department
of Commerce, Washington, 1930, pp. 298-299.
2
Coke and briquettes can be, and are, consumed for the same purposes
as raw coals and compete with raw coal in many markets. The statistics of
the coal-mining industry must therefore be extended to cover coke and briquettes, although their production is a manufacturing activity which is excluded
from the scope of coal mining.
3
Open pit methods of obtaining coal are an important factor in several
countries. In the United States, for example, from 6 to 7 per cent, of the
output of bituminous coal and over 10 per cent, of that of anthracite is
obtained from open pit mines. (United States Bureau of Mines, Minerals
— 25 —
of mining, the coal bed is reached by excavating apparatus which
rips off the overlying earth, rock and dirt (this is called the stripping
of overburden). The coal bed once reached, actual extraction proceeds by means of power shovels; the operation is thus essentially
one of scooping up the available mineral 1 .
In underground mining, three kinds of mines may be distinguished
in terms of the nature of access to the coal bed; these are: (1) drift,
(2) slope, and (3) shaft mines. Where the coal seam outcrops on
the hillside and lies more or less flat, a tunnel may be dug straight
into the face of the outcrop, coal being taken out as the shaft goes
forward into the seam (drift-mines). Where the coal outcrops on
the hillside but lies in a measurably inclined bed, a sloping shaft
may be constructed to get at the coal bed (slope or slant mines) 2 .
Where, usually under flat surfaces, the bed of coal is deep-lying
and with no convenient outcrop, a vertical shaft may be sunk to
reach the seam (shaft mines) 3 .
The main variants of underground mining methods are (1) the
room-and-pillar (or bord-and-pillar) ; (2) the longwall (advancing or
retreating) ; and (3) stall workings, a cross between the two.
Longwall method. The main characteristic of the longwall method is
the digging away of the entire seam of coal and the filling of the open
face either by allowing the earth overlying the coal to fall down and
close in behind the miners as they advance, or by packing in such waste
rock as comes down with the coal. In many mines the cutting of the
coal starts at the shaft and continues toward the border of the property
(advancing method), paths or travelling ways radiating from the shafts
to the places where the coal is dug being kept open. These paths,
technically called entries, serve as haulage ways over which the coal
Yearbook, 1937) About 85 per cent, of the output of lignite in Germany
comes from open workings; about one-fifth of the lignite mines in Czechoslovakia are «also strip pits (International Labour Office Enquiry into the
Lignite Industry in Europe, 1930, International Labour Conference, Fourteenth
Session, 1930). In Manchuria, also, open cut mines account for a large part of
the coal output (China, Bureau of Mines, Organisation of Production,
Processing and Distribution of Coal, 1936).
1
As a general rule the excavators and shovels are operated by steam or
electric power. In some isolated cases, horse power or hand power may be
employed.
2
A slope mine does not necessarily imply that the coal is pitched and
therefore the " slope " method used. The " slope " method, as in the case
of " drift " and " shaft ", is used where this is the most convenient and
economic method to mine the coal seam, even though it lies on a horizontal
plane.
3
No account is taken here of the very small part of the world's coal
output which is obtained by non-mining methods. Thus, coal may be
obtained by the dredging of river beds; in still other cases, it may be obtained
by loading from waste bank accumulations. For example, in the United States,
part of the production of anthracite in Eastern Pennsylvania comes from river
dredging and from waste banks.
— 26 —
is transported in mine cars to the shaft, where it is then hoisted to the
surface and dumped into railroad cars. In other mines, entries are first
driven from the shaft to the border of the property to be worked and
the digging of coal begun there, the miners gradually digging their way
back toward the shaft (retreating method).
(The advancing method) is most commonly employed, for it is quite
evident that the normal output of the mine is under this system attained
very shortly after the shaft has been sunk, whereas in using the (retreating method) roads, or entries, must be driven from the shaft to
the boundaries of the property, an undertaking which may require
considerable time, before any amount of coal is obtained from the mine.
Room-and-pillar method. The room-and-pillar method, as indicated by
the term, is one in which rooms or chambers are cut out of the coal.
These rooms are separated by walls or pillars of coal which serve to
withstand the pressure of the overlying strata and to keep the rock
and earth above from caving.
From the bottom of the shaft, tunnels, called main entries, are
driven forward horizontally into the coal. These entries, which are
from six to twenty-one feet wide and about six feet high, serve as haulage
ways and air courses for the mine. Two or more main entries are commonly driven parallel to each other, one serving as the intaking course
for the fresh air that must be pumped into the mine and the other
serving as a return course.
These parallel entries are connected at intervals of from forty to
ninety feet by break-throughs or cross-cuts. These openings are of about
the same width as the entries and are at right angles to them. As the
entries advance, new cross-cuts are made as close to the face (the most
advanced part of the entry) as the desired intervals will permit, while
the cross-cuts far back are progressively closed. This is to force the air
currents forward to where the men are at work.
After the main entries have been advanced for some distance, the
cross or side entries are driven at fixed intervals, usually at right angles.
These side entries are several hundred feet or more in length, depending
on the area of the property to be worked. It is from the coal blocked
out by these side entries that the main output of coal is obtained when
a mine is in normal operation. All work done and all coal dug prior to
the getting of the coal from these pillars is done incidental to the development of the mine.
The average mine, then, at the beginning of operation, would consist
of a number of rectangular blocks of coal separated by long halls or
side entries, all of which run at right angles into a main entry leading
back to the shaft 1 .
Geological, physical and engineering factors are dominant in
deciding which method of mining shall be employed in exploiting
the coal property. Open pit mining, for instance, is excluded from
use where the coal bed lies too deep, so t h a t an excessive amount
of soil would have to be removed before extraction could begin.
In the choice between longwall and room-and-pillar cutting—the
former obtains a higher ratio of extraction, the latter saves on
1
Isador LUBIN: Miners' Wages and the Cost of Coal, New York, 1924,
pp. 15-17.
— 27 —
development and safety maintenance—it is largely the thickness
of the seam, its inclination and faulting, the formation of the roof,
etc., which have to be taken into account *. However, the geological,
physical and engineering conditions exercise their influence against
the background of economic considerations. The technique of
mining is sufficiently plastic to allow a considerable latitude
of choice which is governed finally by relative costs of production.
The production techniques which characterise the different types
and kinds of mining differ in many respects. The open pit mine
is a large-scale layout for getting coal by excavating and shovelling.
Power shovels and other excavating apparatus are brought to bear
first against the overburden and then against the coal bed. In
shaft mining a shaft must first be sunk to get at the deep-lying
coal bed. After the seam has been reached, entries and cross-cuts
have to be driven, working faces and panels have to be prepared.
To obtain coal from the working face or panel it must be undercut,
blasted, loaded on conveyors, hauled underground to the bottom
of the shaft, and raised to the surface.
From the point of view of the coal market, however, it matters
not at all that the several methods of mining are technologically
diverse. What matters is that the same grades and sizes of coal
are obtained from open pits as from underground mines. The
various types and methods of mining are only alternative ways
and means of producing many kinds of a common commodity.
Because they yield the same product or range of products, the
different methods of obtaining raw coal must be regarded as
alternative forms of carrying on one and the same mining
industry.
III.
THE VARIETY OF COLLIERY ACTIVITIES
It is proposed to define coal mining so as to include all the
productive activities undertaken at collieries from development
of the coal bed to loading for transportation from the tipple or
delivery for processing to works attached to the mine. Surface
as well as underground activities are included to the extent that
such surface activities involve, directly or indirectly, the production of raw coal. Excluded, however, are those surface activities
1
These are elements which differ not only from district to district but also
from mine to mine; in many cases also in the same mining property.
— 28 —
which, carried on at plants attached to the colliery, serve to produce
not raw coal but coke and fuel briquettes 1.
In brief, the following activities are regarded as part of coal
mining :
Development;
Coal getting;
Hauling and hoisting;
Maintenance, servicing and repairs;
Washing, screening and sizing;
Loading and/or delivery.
Logically, coal mining might be defined to begin with the discovery and exploration of coal-bearing properties. For practical
purposes, it is more convenient to assume that the location, shape,
structure, area, content, quality, etc., of the coal deposits are
already known. On this assumption, coal mining begins with
development.
Development may be defined as the systematic preparation and
laying out of mining properties with a view to facilitating and
maintaining a maximum flow of output. In open pit mines, most
if not all of the development must be completed before any yield
of coal becomes possible. It is the stripping of the overburden
which here serves to develop the coal bed. To the extent that
stripping continues, the mine obtains not coal but earth and rock.
In underground mines, development includes the sinking of the
shaft and the driving of a complicated system of main and subsidiary
entries by which to shape out the rooms or panels. Although no
coal can be won until the shaft has been sunk, there is no clear
line of division thereafter between development and the getting
of coal, for as the development workings are driven forward and
sidewise, considerable quantities of coal are obtained in the process.
In drift mines, moreover, development and coal getting merge
completely. The very processes by which the main entry is driven
forward into the seam are the same processes by which the seam
is made to yield the solid fuel.
In the popular view, the term " coal miner " is largely reserved
for those underground workers whose special task it is to undercut,
or otherwise hew into, the working face, to prepare the explosive
charges, set off the blasts, and load the coal into wagons or conveyers
1
Likewise to be excluded are the surface activities at some collieries of
producing electricity and gas for commercial distribution. It is very difficult,
however, to obtain the necessary statistical data for proper adjustments.
— 29 —
for haulage to the shaft. It must be recognised, however, that
workers engaged in operating power shovels, excavators and similar
apparatus at open pit mines are also engaged in direct mining
operations.
A large part of the labour force in most collieries is composed
of surface workers who are employed in maintenance, servicing,
and repair activities. It is the task of such workers to operate
the hoisting equipment, to man the pumps, to supervise the
ventilation system and to repair machines, tools and implements \
In underground mines, transportation intervenes as a separate
step in the production of raw coals. Depending on the type of mine,
transportation may take the form of lateral haulage to the mouth
of the pit directly 2 ; or of hauling to bottom of slope or shaft
and then hoistmg to the surface. In any event, the coal is not
yet produced before it has been brought to the surface and made
available at the mines' mouth. The workers who participate in these
transportation activities thus belong to the coal-mining industry.
After coal has been brought to the surface, it may, if of merchantable grade and size, and free from dust, stones, etc., be at
once loaded for shipment into railway goods wagons, motor lorries,
canal barges, etc. If of non-merchantable quality, however, the
coal is first processed at breakers, washeries and like surface
plants for the working up of raw coal to the market requirements
of size and cleanliness. In other cases, where coking plants or
briquetting works are attached to the colliery, the coal is first
delivered to these plants before being shipped as coke or briquettes.
As for the surface workers engaged in washing the raw coal,
passing it through screens, breaking it down to desired sizes, and
picking out impurities as it moves along belt conveyers, they will
be treated in this Report as attached to the coal-mining industry.
They work in surface plants, it is true, but their services are essential
to the effective production of raw coal. If a mine finds it impossible
or inexpedient to get its raw coal to market without washing,
screening, picking, sizing and breaking, the costs involved in such
activities are necessary costs of production, and the activity
involved is properly part of coal mining.
As for the workers employed in coke ovens or briquetting works
attached to the colliery, they will be treated in this Report
as falling outside the coal-mining industry. In coke ovens and
1
2
Much of this work in many collieries may be carried out underground.
The haulage may be by animal power, by locomotives or by cable
traction.
— 30 —
briquetting works, coal serves as the raw material of
a manufacturing process which yields other products. But
if the workers engaged in coking plants and briquetting
works are not to be regarded as coal-mine workers, the products
they manufacture nevertheless compete directly with raw coal in
a great many consumption uses. When, therefore, the problems
of trade and consumption are examined, it will be necessary to
study not only the statistics of raw coal but also those of coke
and briquettes.
As for the workers employed in loading raw coal on goods
wagons, lorries, barges, or in delivering it to coking plants or
briquetting works at the mine, they are engaged in activities
which lie on the margin between coal mining and transportation.
For the purposes of economic analysis in this Report, it is proposed
to regard such workers as attached to the coal-mining industry in
so far as they belong to the pay-rolls of that industry 1 .
DEFINITION
To sum up, coal mining is defined in this Report so as to include
all the activities at the colliery, beginning with development and ending
with loading or delivery from the tipple. The ranks of coal which are
covered by the definition run from lignite through bituminous to
anthracite. Both underground and open pit mines are included. In
so far as the labour force is concerned, a distinction is drawn between
the economic and social point of view. For purposes of economic
analysis, both underground and surface workers are covered. From
the social point of view, it must be stressed that the conditions under
which underground miners work are totally different from those of
surface workers. Underground work is more difficult, more fatiguing,
more exposed to risks and dangers. This fact is recognised in the
labour legislation of all countries. While it is impossible to study
the economic problems of coal mining such as output, costs, prices, etc.,
without including surface activities, it is legitimate to consider
underground operations as a subject of special social policy.
1
For further description of colliery workers, the nature of their occupations
and numbers employed in different countries, see Vol. II, Chapter I.
CHAPTER III
COAL IN THE INDUSTRIAL ECONOMY
The present chapter aims to examine the part played by coal in
the industrial economy of to-day; first, to evaluate the relative
importance of coal as a source of energy; second, to discuss the
problem of the conservation of coal resources, and third, to analyse
the consumption uses of coal.
I.
IMPORTANCE OF COAL AS A SOURCE OF ENERGY
Owing to its suitability for raising steam, smelting ore and
providing heat, coal furnishes the world with the great bulk of its
energy requirements for industrial and domestic uses together 1 .
1
All estimates of the world's annual output of energy supply are subject
to wide margins of error for several reasons. First, the statistics of production
are of varying coverage and exactness. The data for coal and oil are fairly
complete, but those for water power and natural gas show many gaps, while
there are few useful statistics of output for firewood, peat and other fuels
of minor importance. Second, there is the problem of converting the several
forms of energy into a common unit of measurement. It is customary to make
such conversions on the basis of the calorific values which would be yielded
upon (theoretically) complete combustion. This procedure gives rise to a triple
difficulty. First, the exact thermal weights to be assigned to coal, oil, natural
gas, peat and firewood involve a certain amount of arbitrary choice. Second,
the calculated thermal equivalent of hydro-electric energy is dependent upon
the particular assumptions made as to the efficiency of the thermo-electric
plants. (The method of conversion is to calculate, for a given quantity of
Kwh. produced hydro-electrically, how much coal would have to be consumed
to produce it thermo-electrically. If too low a figure is taken for the efficiency
of thermal plants, this over-estimates the relative importance of water power
as compared with that of coal. If too high a level of efficiency is assumed,
this under-estimates the relative importance of water power as compared with
that of coal.) Third, and most fundamental, the validity of measuring in terms
of calorific values may be altogether challenged. On the one hand, the actual
consumption of any fuel is far from tapping the full store of thermal values
which it contains. On the other hand, coal has value not only because of its
B.T.U. content as a fuel, but also because it is a raw material for producing
pig iron and household gas, among other things. In the analysis of time series,
moreover, the assumption that coal possesses a constant calorific value may
lead to serious errors. Because of improved technology in the consumption
of coal, it is to-day possible to recover a much larger part of its B.T.U. content
than could have been recovered 10, 15 or 20 years ago. From the point of
view of effective yield of B.T.U. a ton of coal counts for a good deal more in
1938 than in 1928 or in 1918. This must be kept in mind when examining
the displacement of coal by other forms of energy.
— 32 —
Several authoritative estimates of the world output of energy
supply have been made in recent years 1. It will suffice to consider
the estimates made by the Institute for Business Cycle Research
(Germany) in 1937 2. Table I gives an abstract of the most
significant data.
TABLE I.
Year
WORLD OUTPUT OF ENERGY SUPPLY 1913-1935
In
1913
1925
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
Lignite
Coal
million
1,216
1,185
1,325
1,217
1,075
955
1,000
1,088
1,112
Oil
metric tons c / equivalent
46
66
82
70
65
60
62
68
73
77
213
295
281
271
256
282
294
323
Percentages
1913
1925
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
71.4
64.6
62.3
61.1
58.8
56.6
56.6
57.6
56.6
Natural
gas
2.7
3.6
3.8
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.5
3.6
3.7
of total
4.5
11.6
13.9
12.6
14.8
15.2
16.0
15.6
16.5
24
46
74
69
67
63
63
72
75
Water
power
Total
300
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
40
75
103
102
99
103
109
116
131
1,703
1,835
2,129
1,989
1,827
1,687
1,766
1,888
1,964
17.6
13.6
11.7
14.1
13.7
14.8
14.2
13.3
12.8
2.4
4.1
4.8
5.1
5.4
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.6
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Firewood
coal 1
supply
1.4
2.5
3.5
3.5
3.7
3.7
3.6
3.8
3.8
i The following weights have been used (per kg.): coal 7.0; lignite 2.5.; oil 10.0; natural
gas 9.6; firewood 3.6. In the conversion of hydro-electric power, the efficiency of thermoelectric plants is assumed constant at 1 kg. coal equals 1 Kwh.
SOURCE: INSTITUT FÜR KONJUNKTURFORSCHUNO: Energiequellen der Well, p. 19.
1
Besides the estimates discussed in the text, reference might be made to
those of the World Power Conferences of 1929 and of 1936 which relate to
1927 and to 1933/34 respectively; to those of the United States Bureau of
Mines which relate to 1913 and 1925, and to those of the Dresdner Bank
(Germany) which relate to 1925. Despite their variations, these estimates
agree with those discussed in the text on two essential conclusions : first, coal
still covers the great bulk of the world's energy requirements; second, the
post-war expansion in the output of energy supply has been covered, for the
most part, by an increase in the production of oil, natural gas, and water
power.
2
R. REGUL and K. G. MAHNKE, Energiequellen der Welt. Institut für Kon-
junkturforschung, Sonderheft 44. Berlin, 1937. These are the latest estimates
available from a source of recognised authority; they contain evaluations for
the whole of the period from 1913-1925; they have the further advantage of
including an allowance (admittedly conventional) for firewood.
— 33 —
As shown by the above table, in 1935 about three-fifths (60.3 per
cent.) of the world's energy requirements were covered by the output
of coal and lignite together. Goal alone was responsible for 56.6
per cent, of the total and lignite by itself for nearly 3.7 per cent.
Oil and natural gas served to cover one-fifth (20.3 per cent.)
of the world's energy requirements in 1935. In other words,
coal and lignite together were three times more important than oil
and natural gas combined \ The next most important source of
power supply, it would appear, was firewood with 12.8 per cent.
of the world's total to its credit. Water power, responsible for
only 6.6 per cent., came last among the principal furnishers of
energy supply. It should be kept in mind, however, that the
estimate for the annual output of firewood is conventional and
fixed2. Likewise, the calorific importance of water power is
possibly overstated because of the seemingly low level of thermoelectric efficiency which is assumed 3.
It is also apparent from table I that the relative contribution of
coal and lignite to the world's output of power supply fell considerably between 1913 and 1932, after which a state of equilibrium was
seemingly reached. In 1913, coal and lignite furnished 74.1 per
cent, of the world total ; in 1925, only 68.2 per cent. ; in 1929, only
66.1 per cent. ; in 1932, 60.2, and in 1935,60.1 per cent. In contrast,
the share contributed by oil and natural gas rose from 5.9 per
cent, of the world total in 1913 to 20.3 per cent, in 1935 ; while that
contributed by water power went up over the same period from
2.4 to 6.6 per cent. These shifts took place against a background
of a total volume of energy supply which was expanding slowly but
measurably. The factors responsible for this total expansion and
for the changes in the relative shares of the different sources of
power are considered in Chapter V.
1
So far as the actual yields of B.T.U. from coal, lignite, oil and natural gas
•diverged from the potential yields, the results of table I would be somewhat distorted. It cannot be said whether such distortion would favour
coal and lignite or oil and natural gas.
2
It is assumed that the output of firewood totalled 300 million metric tons
of coal equivalent in 1913; and 250 million metric tons in each of the years
from 1925 to 1935 inclusive. In 1933, according to the Statistical Year-Book
of the World Power Conference of 1936 (No. 1, 1933-1934, p. 40), consumption of wood fuel was greatest in the United States (164 million cubic
metres) and in the Soviet Union (81 million cubic metres).
3
The assumed efficiency is 2.2 lbs. of coal for 1 Kwh. This should be
•compared with the 1936 efficiency of public utility plants (United States)
•of 1.44 lbs. and with the 1934-1935 efficiency of such plants (Great Britain)
of 1.47 lbs.
CR. I.
3
— 34 —
Comparison of United States, Germany, Great Britain
and the Soviet Union
The data on the world output of power supply may be usefully
supplemented by more complete data for the United States, Germany, Great Britain and the Soviet Union. The figures for the
United States, which are presented in table II, show that in 1936
coal contributed somewhat less than three-fifths of the total supply
of energy available for consumption in that country. Bituminous
coal alone was responsible for almost half of the total, anthracite
separately for between 6 and 7 per cent. Allowing for the absence
of firewood from the United States figures, it would appear
that coal satisfies a smaller share of total energy requirements
in the United States than in the world at large 1. Table II also
shows that in the United States, as in the world at large, coal has
been losing ground relatively to oil, natural gas and water power.
At the turn of the century, coal was yielding nine-tenths of the
national energy supply; in 1913 it yielded over four-fifths, in 1929
somewhat more than two-thirds, and in 1936 less than three-fifths
of the total 2.
In Germany and Great Britain, in contrast to the United States,
coal still furnishes nine-tenths or more of the national energy
requirements. In 1934, 88.8 per cent, of Germany's consumption
of energy and 93.9 per cent, of Great Britain's were derived from
raw and processed coal. Changes since 1900 are shown in tables III
and IV.
In Germany, as. may be seen from table III, the contribution
of coal and lignite to the national energy supply was about the
same in 1934 as in 1913 (i.e. some 900 billion calories); consumption
of oil and water power, in contrast, had more than trebled
(i.e. from some 20 to some 65 billion calories). The trend to oil and
1
If firewood is excluded from the world data so as to make table I comparable with table II, it results that coal and lignite were responsible for
69.2 per cent, of the world's output of energy supply in 1935. In the United
States, however, anthracite and bituminous coal were responsible for only
56.7 per cent, of the energy supply in 1936. This is only another way of saying
that the consumption of oil and natural gas reaches higher levels in the United
States than in any other industrial country. In 1936, these liquid hydrocarbons
were responsible for a little less than two-fifths of the energy available for
consumption in the United States; in other words, they were almost twice
as large in the fuel economy of this country as in that of the world as a whole.
Adjusting table I by removing firewood raises the share of oil and natural
gas from 20.1 to 23.2 per cent, of the world total.
2
For further discussion, see Chapter V.
— 35 —
TABLE I I . — ANNUAL SUPPLY OF ENERGY FROM MINERAL FUELS
AND WATER POWER, UNITED STATES, 1 8 9 9 - 1 9 3 6
A. — Relative
Year
Pennsylva- Bitunia
minanous
thra- coal
cite
1899
1913
1925
1936*
61
93
63
55(a)
33
83
90
75
rale of growth of coal, oil and water
1918 volume of o u t p u t = 100
Crude
petroleum
Total
coal
37
84
86
72
Domestic
Impro- ports
duction
16
70
215
309
45
164
86
Natural
gas
31
81
165
288
power
Grand
Water
power
(at
Total
With
conoil
water
and stant power at
fuel
gas
equi- constant
fuel
vaequilent)
valent
19
71
199
287
16
70
154
270
total
With
water
power at
prevailing
central
station
equivalent
34
82
105
110
35
82
102
105
B. — Per cent, of total B.T.U. equivalent
contributed
by coal, oil and water power
With water power counted at constant fuel equivalent
of 4 lbs. per Kwh.
m~*..l
lUbdl
minfuels
1899 22.1
1913 14.0
7.4
1925
1936* 6.2(6)
68.2
70.3
59.6
47.1
90.3
84.3
67.0
53.3
4.6
8.3
20.1
27.3
_
0.6
1.6
0.8
3.3
3.5
5.6
9.3
7.9
12.4
27.3
37.4
98.2
96.7
94.3
90.7
Water
power
fuel
equivalent
Grand
total
including
water
power
1.8
3.3
5.7
9.3
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Water power counted at prevailing
central-station
equivalent for each year
1899 21.8
1913 13.9
1925
7.6
1936* 6.6(6)
67.3
70.3
61.3
50.1
89.1
84.2
68.9
56.7
4.5
8.3
20.6
29.0
0.6
1.7
0.9
3.2
3.5
5.8
9.8
7.7
12.4
28.1
39.7
96.8
96.6
97.0
96.4
3.2
3.4
3.0
3.6
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
* Preliminary.
(a) If illicit or bootleg anthracite were included, the index for 1936 would be 59.
(ft) If bootleg coal were included, the proportion from anthracite would be 6.6. in 1936
at constant, and 7.0 in i936 at •prevailing water power equivalent.
Conversion factors. The unit heat values employed are: anthracite, 13,600 B.T.U. per lb.;
bituminous coal, 13,100 B.T.U. per lb.; petroleum, 6,000,000 B.T.U. per barrel; natural
gas, 1,075 B.T.U. per cubic foot. Water power at constant fuel equivalent is calculated
at the central-station efficiency of 1913, i.e. 4 lbs. of coal per Kwh.; central-station
efficiency improved from 7.05 lbs. of coal per Kwh. in 1899 to 1.44 lbs. in 1936.
SOURCE: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Bureau of Mines: Mineral Year-
Booh 1937, pp. 808-810.
water power has thus been much more moderate than in the case
of the United States, which is to be explained by Germany's
relative poverty in energy resources other than solid hydrocarbons.
— 36 —
TABLE I I I .
BY
PERCENTAGE OF ENERGY CONSUMPTION CONTRIBUTED
SELECTED
FORMS OF ENERGY SUPPLY, GERMANY,
Year
Coal
Lignite
Oil
1900
1913
1930
1934
78.2
73.3
66.0
64.7
12.8
18.9
23.2
24.1
1.5
1.8
4.1
4.2
Firewood
Peat
Water
power
7.3
5.6
4.5
4.6
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.3
2.0
2.1
1900-1934
Total
consumption
(in billion
calories)
870
974
1,154
1,014
SOURCE: REQUL AND MAHNKE: Energiequellen der Welt, p. 29.
As for Great Britain, table IV shows that while the consumption
of coal fell between 1913 and 1934 (from 1,254 to 1,057 billion
calories) that of motor spirit and fuels increased more than three
times (from 45 to 153 billion calories). Water power is of limited
importance in this country; fuel oils have to be imported.
TABLE IV.
ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF GREAT BRITAIN, 1 9 1 3 - 1 9 3 4
Billion calories
Percentage of total
Form of energy
1913
Coal, metallurgical coke a n d
briquettes
Gas from coal
Gas coke
Electric power from coal . .
Motor spirit, fuel oils, e t c . .
Total
1930 1934
1913
1930 1934
1,156
26
72
35
10
1,077
31
71
69
59
957
31
69
79
74
88.9
2.0
5.6
2.7
0.8
82.4
2.3
5.5
5.3
4.5
78.0
2.6
5.7
6.6
6.1
1,299
1,307
1,210
100.0
100.0
100.0
SOURCE: REGUL AND MAHNKE: Energiequellen der Welt, p. 31.
Despite its richness in wood, peat, mineral oils, and water power,
the Soviet Union is one of the few countries where coal is coming
to occupy a larger place in the national fuel economy. Compared
with 53 per cent, in the pre-war years and 59 per cent, in 1932,
coal to-day furnishes well over 70 per cent, of the total energy
requirements of the Soviet Union. And this rise has taken place to
— 37 —
the accompaniment of a considerable expansion in the total energy
supply. Table V gives the details:
TABLE V.
ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF THE SOVIET UNION, PRE-WAR
AND POST-WAR
Percentages supplied
Form of energy
Firewood
Peat
Mineral oils
Coal
Total
by specified forms of energy
1909-13
average
1932
1935
1937
(plan)
29.7
2.4
15.0
52.9
100.0
14.5
4.2
21.9
59.4
100.0
11.6
4.8
16.1
67.4
9.9
6.2
12.0
71.8
100.0
100.0
SOURCES: U.S.S.R.: Rehonstruhcija kamennougolnoi promyslennosti, p. 19; Planovoe Khozjajstvo, 1937, No. 2.
II.
T H E CONSERVATION OF COAL RESOURCES
Resources of energy fall into three groups. First, inexhaustible
resources, of which the quantity could not, in any practical sense,
be diminished by use. To this group belong waterfalls and wind
currents. Second, replenishable resources of which the quantities
depleted by use can be restored. To this group belong firewoods
and plants used as fuel. Third, expendable resources, of which the
quantities depleted by use cannot be replaced. To this group
belong coal, oil and natural gas 1 .
In the distant future it may well happen t h a t industry will
succeed in harnessing the rise and fall of the tides, in making use
of the temperature differences between the surface and the deep
waters of the sea, etc. But for all practical purposes and for many
years to come, mankind will be restricted to coal, peat, oil and
natural gas among the expendable resources ; to firewood and a few
plants among those replenishable, and to water and wind-power
among those inexhaustible. So far as useful calculations can be
made, the expendable resources to-day furnish about four-fifths
of the world's energy requirements, while the replenishable and
inexhaustible resources supply the remaining fifth.
In the present state of statistical knowledge, any estimate of
1
For a discussion of the classification of natural resources, see E. W.
pp. 796-797.
ZIMMERMAN: World Resources and Industries, New York, 1933,
— 38 —
the aggregate resources of energy at mankind's disposal must be
largely speculative l. Even the more limited problem of evaluating
the world's coal reserves alone gives rise to disagreements. Experts
disagree because of the way in which they draw the line between
reserves proved, reserves probable and reserves potential; and also
because of where they set the maximum depths at which reserves
shall be regarded as available for exploitation.
Referring to three authoritative estimates of fairly recent date,
a student remarks:
The differences shown in these three estimates are such that one
can hardly attach importance to any of them, and it is scarcely sufficient
to say that the coal resources of the world lie between 5,835,000,000,000
tons and 10,800,000,000,000. The range is much too wide to allow any
of these calculations to be of value. a
The survey made by the Twelfth International Geological
Congress at Toronto in 1913 is still to-day the basic source of all
attempts to evaluate the tonnage of world coal resources. The
data of the 1913 survey have been brought up to date by the World
Power Conference of 1936 in its Statistical Yearbook for 1933-1934;
the detailed results are shown in table VI. The distribution of
solid fuel resources as given in that table may be presented in
summary form as follows:
(In thousands of million metric tons)
Coals
Europe
N o r t h America .
Central and
South America.
Africa
Asia
Australasia . . .
Totals
. . .
Brown coal and lignite
Proved
Probable
Proved
Probable
548.4
30.3
1,561.8
2,286.4
60.1
391.3
270.6
1,441.4
2.1
9.3
10.9
21.4
1.1
209.7
10,155.5
140.8
0.1
10.7
11.9
1.1
0.6
622.4
14,355.3
462.2
1,725.6
Peat
Probable
104.6
13.4
0.1
118.1
SOURCE: See table VI, p. 39.
1
For an interesting estimate, see Professor ARRHENIUS' figures in Power
Resources of the World, compiled by H. QUIGLEY for the International Execu-
tive Council, World Power Conference, London, 1929, p. 7.
2
QUIGLEY: Power Resources of the World, p. 9.
TABLE VI. —
COALS, B R O W N COAL, LIGNITE A N D P E A T — W O R L D
RESOURCES
(In millions of metric tons)
N a m e of country
0
Europe
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Czechoslovakia
Danzig
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France (Including Saar) . .
Saar
Germany c
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
U.S.S.R
United Kingdom
Yugoslavia
North
America
Canada
United States of A m e r i c a )
Alaska
Central and South
America
Argentina
Chile
Honduras :
Peru
Africa
Southern R h o d e s i a . . . .
Union of South Africa . .
Belgian Dependencies, e t c . :
Belgian Congo
British Dependencies, etc. :
Nigeria n
Nyasaland
Tanganyika
Asia
French(excluding
Dependencies,
etc. :
China
Manchuria)
French Morocco . . . .
Manchuria
J a Tunis
p a n Proper
Date
of
report
1930
1913
1934
1932
1933
1913
1935
1932
1935
1922
1922
1913
1932
1934
1913
1934
1913
1933
1934
1913
1933
1934
1933
1933
1913
1913
1928
1913
Proved
reserves
13
11,000 a
0.5
6,450
0
0
0
0
6,000
9,205
71,240
0
200
107
1
N
212.5
U
13,988
4,500 g
97
0
295,900
129,500
30,3192
U
U
1933
1913
1913
1919
0
2,116
1913
1921-7
420
7,914
19
1.2
25,000
0
0
0
0
17,000
9,205
270,311
U
200
146
N
4,474 d
8,000 A,
47,793
5,500 g
105
0
998,000
176,000
33 i
242,400
2,040,640
3,554
Brown coal and lignite
Proved
reserves
611
500
12,500
0
U
0
0
1,600
0
28,837
10
1,550
U
51.5
N
U
U
1,500
h
N
0
12,890
N
58.6
391,260
U
U
Peat
Probable
total
reserves
Probable
total
reserves
2,337
80
1,000
U
0
0
0
1,600
0
56,758
30
1,550
U
101
N
U
U
5,000
h
N
0
202,000
N
240 b
2,030
U
U
0
10,000
120
3,600
1,665
U
U
5,500 A , /
9,000 A , /
N
72,330
U
247.5 i
572,686
852,128
16,559
U
13,380
80
50
1
1,000
570
205,682 fe
100
1913
1934
1933
1934
113
U
800
1934
1934
30
1913
1913
1932
Coals
Probable
total
reserves
3,360
U
U
11,856
0
0.1
5,895
',112,000
1,129
16,218
U
20,600
0
1
600
66
473
British Dependencies, etc. :
l
1
1935
U
1
Federated Malay States
U
1932
U
5,000
U
India
1934
2.66
13
0
0
Sarawak
1913
Japanese Dependencies, etc.:
5,585
Korea
Netherlands Dependencies,
1933
U
etc.:
Netherlands East Indies
10,621
U
1927
20,900
139,400
Australasia
80
1934
600
480
1,400
Australia m . . . . .. . .
N e w Zealand
Figures compiled or computed by t h e E d i t o r are in italics.
A Approximate. — N Negligible, u n i m p o r t a n t . — U Unrecorded, not available. — (a) Within a
d e p t h of 1,500 metres. — (b) W i t h a fuel value equal to t h a t of 100 million metric tons of coal. D a t e
of report of this figure: 1920. — (c) Columns 3-6 exclude, and columns 1 and 2 apparently exclude,
Saar. (Editor.) — (d) " Actual, probable, and possible reserves." — (e) In Spitzbergen. — (/) Computed
on t h e basis of 25 per cent, water content. — (g) Including lignite. — (h) Included in columns 2 and 3.
— (i) " Possible reserves." — (j) Excluding Alaska and other non-contiguous territories. — (ft)
" Proved, estimated, and undetermined resources." " Proved and estimated resources " reported as
21,524 million metric tons. — (() No known deposits of economic value. — (m) Large areas remain
unprospected, and t h e figures presented relate only to resources which have been quantitatively
estimated. — (n) Including Cameroons under British Mandate.
S O U R C E : Statistical Yearbook of the World Power Conference, No. 1, 1933-1934, London, 1936, p p . 21-22.
— 40 —
Although coal is an expendable resource of which large quantities
are used up each year, there are no adequate reasons to fear that
the world's supply of coal will come anywhere near exhaustion
in the near future. Individual seams or districts will of course be
worked out sooner or later, as many individual seams and districts
have been worked out in the past. What is more, the cost of
obtaining coal is likely to rise substantially as shafts go deeper
and deeper under the earth, as mining proceeds from the thicker
to the thinner seams, and as coal deposits more distant from
markets are worked. But the supplies of coal within the range
of costs commonly regarded as practicable would seem to be
adequate for any demands that are likely to be made against them
for at least several hundred years.
Precise calculations of the probable life of the coal reserves now
known or believed to exist are out of the question. First, there
is no certainty as to the exact tonnage of the coal deposits available
for future exploitation. Second, there is no way of foretelling the
exact levels which coal consumption will reach in the future.
Estimates of the probable life of existing coal resources thus vary
greatly. Because of their authoritative character and quite recent
date, it might nevertheless be instructive to consider the estimates
which were made in 1937 by the Institute for Business Cycle
Research (Germany) 1. A summary of these calculations is
reproduced in table VII.
TABLE VII.
PROBABLE LIFE OF COAL RESERVES WITH DIFFERENT
RATES OF INCREASE IN PRODUCTION
Country
Proved
and probable
reserves (a)
Probable life
Average
yearly
With proWith yearly
duction
coal proincrease of
duction, constant at
0.5
2.0
1925-1935 1925-1935
average percent. percent.
Million metric tons
World
. . . .
United States
Soviet Union .
Great Britain
Germany . .
Poland . . .
Canada . . .
China . . . .
4,600,000
1,975,000
1,075,000
200,000
289,000
138,000
286,000
220,000
1,233.5
535.8
30.3
230.3
148.1
37.8
11.3
16.5
Years
3,730
3,686
35,478
868
1,951
3,651
25,310
13,330
595
593
1,037
329
470
590
969
842
217
217
330
147
186
216
314
282
(a) Bituminous and anthracite to depth of 2,000 metres.
SOURCE: Energiequellen der Welt, p. 47.
1
These calculations refer to anthracite and bituminous reserves alone.
They assume t h a t such reserves, proved and probable, down to a d e p t h of
2,000 metres, a m o u n t to 4.6 millions of million metric tons.
— 41 —
If the future rate of extraction should not exceed the world
average of 1925-1935, it would take no less than 37 centuries to
exhaust the anthracite and bituminous coal reserves of the entire
world. If, however, the extraction rate were to increase by 0.5 per
cent, cumulative yearly over its 1925-1935 base, then the world's
coal resources would suffice for no more than six centuries. If,
finally, the rate of increase in extraction were to get as high as
2.0 per cent, cumulative yearly, then the anthracite and bituminous coal reserves of the world would be used up in a little
more than 200 years.
The extreme limits of probable life for national coal reserves are
shown by Great Britain and by the Soviet Union. Assuming an
average output no larger than the national averages of the 19251935 period in both cases, the anthracite and bituminous coals of
Great Britain would be exhausted not long after 8 % centuries had
gone by. Those of the Soviet Union would last for well over
35,000 years. The assumption of a 2 per cent, increase 1 results
in a probable life ranging from a minimum of a century and a half
in the case of Great Britain to a maximum of 3 % centuries in the
case of the Soviet Union.
Granted, however, that fears of an imminent coal shortage would
be unfounded, the question of conserving coal reserves remains
highly important. After all, coal is an expendable resource; and
as in the exploitation of all minerals, the increasing physical
handicaps which will necessarily accompany the continued depletion
of present reserves imply a tendency to higher costs of production.
To pursue wasteful policies in the mining and utilisation of coal
is thus to hasten a natural process—that of " diminishing returns "
which will in the long run operate to make more costly the basic
source of power and heat upon which the modern industrial system
is dependent. To accelerate that process is all the more serious
as geologists are generally agreed t h a t the world's reserves of
oil will give out or become uneconomical to exploit long before
this happens to coal 2 .
This does not mean t h a t there is need at present to diminish the
annual output of coal, either internationally or in particular
1
In the light of the post-war trends of actual coal output, a yearly increase
of 2 per cent, cumulative would seem to represent the outside rate that might
reasonably be expected over the course of the next few decades. For further
discussion
see Chapter V.
2
See the recent estimates of the probable life of the world's oil reserves
given in Energiequellen
der Welt, p . 47.
— 42 —
countries 1. The question of conserving coal resources centres in
the possibilities for eliminating present wastes in the mining and
utilisation of coal, and thus in holding back a rise in costs and a fall
in mining productivity. Although it would be impossible to contemplate one hundred per cent, extraction of the fuel contained
in any seam, much of the loss in the mining of coal is avoidable;
such are the wastes which occur when coal is left behind in room
entry and panel pillars ; when it is left, despite its good quality,
on the roof and bottom ; when it is lost in handling and preparation,
underground and surface. Premature abandonment of mines,
particularly during periods of depression, is also an important cause
of waste 2.
As for avoiding waste in the utilisation of coal, this depends on
the thermal methods for consuming coal as a fuel as well as the
chemical techniques for capturing as much as possible of the energy
values which coal contains. The thermal methods for consuming
coal industrially have improved strikingly during the recent past 3 ;
but the movement is nowhere near its practical limits, while the
consumption of coal for household heating is still in a backward
phase of technical efficiency. The calorific value of existing coal
reserves would be greatly enhanced by modernising such plant
and equipment as fall short of the best thermal practice now
prevailing, not to speak of the added resources which must result
from the advance of the best practice to still higher levels.
Equally great steps toward the conservation of coal reserves may
be expected from the continuing development of the present
techniques of breaking down coal into coke, gas, tar, pitch, fuel
1
The conclusions reached by the Royal Commission on the Coal Industry
(1925), with specific reference to Great Britain, hold equally true to-day with
general reference to the world.
" It is, of course, essential to exercise every economy in the utilisation of
coal, so as to reduce to a minimum the waste of the energy which it contains,
and to exercise economy in the methods of working coal, so as to avoid losses
due to waterlogging and similar natural causes; but the general conclusion
is indicated that it is unnecessary to contemplate any restriction upon the
production of coal, other than that which results from the general economic
conditions of the time "'. — UNITED KINGDOM : Report of the Royal Commission
on the Coal Industry (1926), Vol. I. Report, p. 20.
2
In the United States, for example, the. Coal Commission of 1923 estimated
that to produce about 455 million metric tons of deep mined bituminous coal
would require a total drain on resources—tonnage mined plus tonnage lost—
amounting to 694 million metric tons. Of the total quantity lost—-2B9 million
metric tons—well over half or 136 million metric tons should be classed as
avoidable loss. See RICE, FIELDNER and TRYON : Conservation of Coal Resources,
World Power Conference, 1936, pp. 18-19.
3
See figures in Chapter V.
— 43 —
oils, etc., the coke to be used metallurgically or domestically or
for generating electric power. This procedure, which may be
described as raising coal to " higher energy " forms before final
consumption, has not been carried out to the same extent in all
of the industrial countries; table VIII suggests the differences of
level in " rational " coal consumption between two countries of
highly developed industrialism : Germany and Great Britain.
TABLE
VIII.
PERCENTAGES
OF CALORIFIC
YIELD
FROM
COAL
FURNISHED BY SPECIFIED FORMS OF ENERGY, GERMANY AND
GREAT BRITAIN
Type of energy yielding calorific values
from coal
Germany
Great Britain
(1935)
(1934)
Raw coal
Raw lignite
39.5
5.5
78.6
Coal briquettes
Lignite briquettes
2.9
13.3
0.0
Metallurgical coke
Gas coke
16.8
2.81
5.5
6.1
Electricity
Gas
11.1
8.1
7.0
2.8
100.0
100.0
Total
•
i Including 0.5 per cent, for coke from lignite.
Efficiency /actors. Germany: Effective calorific yields (in per cent.) are; all raw and
processed coal, 15; all electric current, 90; all gas, 60. Thermo-electric fuel efficiency
of 1 Kwh. = 860 metric calories. Great Britain: For coke and for gas works, 1 ton of
coal = 13,000 cubic feet of gas; for thermo-electric plants, 1 Kwh. = 0.72 kg. of coal;
coal for gas coke, 1 ton of coal yields 13.3 cwt. of coke.
SOURCE: Energiequellen der Welt, 1937, pp. 30-31.
It will be seen from table VIII that the " higher energy " forms of
electricity, gas and coke supply almost twice as large a proportion
of the calorific values from coal in Germany (38.8 per cent.) as
they do in Great Britain (21.4 per cent.). This is largely the
consequence of differences in the weight of heavy metallurgy in
the two national economies; but it also reflects in part Germany's
lead over the rest of the world in bringing the exploitation of
— 44 —
the thermal and raw material properties of coal to a higher level
of scientific usage 1 .
From the viewpoint of the prosperity of the coal-mining industry,
in the short run, the movement towards avoiding waste in utilising
coal has undeniably been a force in bringing about over-capacity
and under-employment during recent years. From the viewpoint
of the long-run prosperity of the entire industrial system, however,
every possible waste in utilising coal should be avoided in order to
slow down the depletion of the most important source of energy
now available to mankind.
III.
T H E CONSUMPTION U S E S OF COAL
The uses of coal are generally divided into industrial and domestic 2 . The main industrial function discharged by coal is to
provide power. This may be accomplished by burning the coal
to raise steam for direct use ; by applying the steam to the generation
of electric current; by transforming raw coal or coke into gas,
or by utilising the surplus gases which result from the making of
coke. It is predominantly by means of power derived from
coal that the plant and equipment of the transportation, manufacturing, extraction, construction and other industries are kept
running. A second industrial function of coal is to furnish heat,
not only to warm factories, workshops, stores, warehouses, etc., but
also for carrying out a number of metallurgical operations. A third
usage of coal industrially is to serve as a raw material in the
1
This tendency between 1929 and 1935 for the world as a whole was as
follows :
(In per cent, of total coal consumption)
Consumption of:
All anthracite and bituminous
o/ which:
Transformed into coke
into briquettes
into gas
All lignite and brown coal
'
of which:
Transformed into briquettes
Coal and lignite for electricity
Coal and lignite non-transformed
SOURCE:
Energiequellen der Welt, p. 22.
2
1929
(96.2)
1935
(96.1)
14.2
.1.5
5.4
(3.8)
13.4
1.7
6.5
(3.9)
2.1
15.0
61.8
1.9
21.5
55.0
It should be realised, however, that much of the consumption of coal
is intermediate in character. When, for example, electric stations, gas works
and coking plants consume raw coal, it is not finally put to use until electric
current, manufactured gas and coke are supplied, as the case may be, to
households or to industrial and commercial undertakings. See Chapter V
for further discussion.
— 45 —
smelting of iron ore, the manufacture of steel and similar metallurgical conversions. A minor industrial function of coal is to
supply artificial light for workplaces. In domestic consumption,
coal provides for the human needs of warmth, artificial light, fuels
for cooking, etc. 1
Most of the significant economic factors—elasticity of demand,
responsiveness to cyclical influences, pressure of interfuel competition and of fuel economies—vary greatly as between the industrial
and domestic.uses of coal. It is important, therefore, to draw a
clear line between these uses of coal. However, the task is far
from simple 2. It is generally assumed in the national statistics
that the domestic consumption of coal is the residue which remains
after accounting for all of the known industrial consumption: that
is by railways, steamships, thermo-electric plants, gasworks, metallurgical plants, collieries, other mines, other industrial undertakings.
The major practical difficulty is that most of the consumption of
coal by gasworks, a large part of that by thermo-electric plants, and
measurable quotas of that by coking-plants, railways and steamships serve, in the end, to satisfy domestic demand. A second
difficulty is that the residue includes a considerable quantity of
consumption on the account of commercial undertakings (by
warehouses, shops, business offices, etc.) and of public authorities
(by schools, ministries, hospitals, etc.). In the absence of reliable
methods of adjustment, the estimates presented below are roughly
approximate only.
It is customary to distinguish between.the use of coal for energy
purposes and as a raw material. Coal is said to be consumed for
energy purposes in all consumption where the immediate aim is to
obtain power, heat or light. This includes the conversion of coal
into electricity. Coal is said to be used as a raw material when it is
carbonised to obtain metallurgical or gas coke together with
manufactured gas and by-products such as tar, ammonium sulphate
1
A minor domestic use of coal is that of furnishing the power to operate
certain types of household apparatus, such as vacuum cleaners and mechanical
refrigerators.
2
To which group, for example, should be attributed coals used in providing
heat, light and cooking fuel to hotels and restaurants ? Where coal raises
power for the transport of passengers by railroads and steamships, should a
certain quota be charged against industrial use (the transport of commercial
travellers) and another quota against domestic use (the transport of tourists) ?
In those cases where the statistics of central electric stations and central
gasworks do not distinguish sales to industrial from those to domestic consumers, by what criteria shall total sales be distributed between the two
categories ?
— 46 —
and crude light oils 1 . A new and growing use of coal as a raw
material is for manufacturing crude oils out of which motor spirit
can be distilled.
The Available Statistics of Consumption
by Uses
The available statistical data on the consumption of coal by uses
are far from satisfactory 2 . According to rough estimates submitted
on behalf of the Mining Association of Great Britain to the International Economic Conference of 1927, about three-fourths of the
world's coal output was then being consumed for fuel, and the
remainder as raw material 3. Totalling 78 per cent., the fuel uses
were specified as follows:
Per cent.
Industry (mainly for steam raising) . . .
29
Railways
23
Electric generating stations
6
Ships' bunkers
3
Fuel for domestic purposes
17
Totalling 22 per cent, the raw material uses (including the
consumption of coke and the manufacture of gas) were distinguished
as below:
Per cent.
Pig iron
10
Steel
7
Gasworks
5
Since 1926, there is reason to believe, the share of total consumption attributable to central electric stations has increased
appreciably, while the quotas of iron and steel works and of steamship transport have fallen a good deal 4 . There is also reason to
1
Where metallurgical coke is manufactured in by-product coke ovens, gas
is obtained as the principal by-product. Where gas is manufactured in byproduct ovens or retorts, metallurgical coke or gas coke is obtained as the
major
by-product.
2
Only a few countries publish annual statistics of a detailed kind—for
example, Germany, the United States, Great Britain, Japan and Poland. The
various national figures are not readily comparable. There is little uniformity
as regards the definition of domestic consumers and the treatment of gasworks—coking ovens, etc. The importance of steamship transport is generally
understated. This is due to the fact that, without differentiating between
vessels of home and foreign registry, bunker loadings in foreign trade are
commonly included in the export statistics. Above all, no trustworthy breakdowns
are to be found between industrial and domestic consumption.
3
See W. T. LAYTON and Sir Arthur BALFOUR: "Observations on the
Coal Industry "; LEAGUE OF NATIONS, Memorandum on Coal, Vol. II (February
1927), p. 6.
4
For supporting data, see Chapter V.
— 47 —
believe that the estimate for 1926 somewhat exaggerates the
importance of iron and steel works as coal consumers at that time
and thus overstates the importance of coal as a raw material 1 . In
view of these considerations, and in the light of the national estimates subsequently examined, it might reasonably be suggested that
at present about four-fifths of the world's coal is consumed as fuel,
and the remaining fifth as raw material, somewhat as follows:
As fuel:
Industry (mainly for steam raising) . .
Railways
Electric generating stations
Ships' bunkers
Collieries
Fuel for domestic purposes
Total
As raw material:
Metallurgical works (mainly iron and steel)
Gasworks
•.
Total
Per cent.
30
15
8
2
5
20
80
15
5
20
The available national statistics on the consumption of coal by
principal types of consumers show the widest variations. These
variations are due to the interaction of a great many factors;
among the most important of these are the level of a country's
industrial development, particularly with regard to the metallurgical
industries and railway transport; differences in national standards
of housing with due allowance for climatic conditions ; divergences in
the availability of fuels and sources of power other than coal.
In table IX, recent figures are presented for 14 important coalconsuming countries 2. As may be seen from this table, from onefifth to one-fourth of the total coal tonnage is consumed for
1
Inasmuch as the great bulk of coal consumption by iron and steel works
takes the form of coke, the share of total consumption attributable to iron
and steel works has the total supply of metallurgical coke available as its
rough upper limit (iron and steel works are not the only consumers of metallurgical coke ; some so-called metallurgical coke is in fact consumed domestically).
In 1925.only 13.2 per cent, of the world's coal output was carbonised for
producing metallurgical coke, only 15.7 per cent, in 1929, and only 14.0 per
cent, in 1934. The production of gas coke in these three years was 3.0, 2.8
and 3.2 per cent, of coal output respectively. J . R . B R A D L E Y ("World Production of Metallurgical and Gas Coke "), United States Bureau of Mines,
International Coal Trade, Vol. XI, No. 6, 30 June 1937, p. 13. These findings
are mainly based on statistics gathered by the Federal Coal Council (Reichskohlenrat) of Germany.
a
This is the first time, so far as the International Labour Office is aware,
taht such an international comparison has been made.
— 48 —
TABLE IX. — RECENT ESTIMATES OF CONSUMPTION OF COAL BY MAJOR
USES IN SELECTED COUNTRIES
Percentage of national coal consumption attributable to
Country
Quantity
available
for con- Gassump- works
tion,
1936
a
Million
metric
ions
164.2
Germany. . .
China (excluding Manchu20.2
ria)
7.9
Manchuria. .
8.3
Spain
. . . .
1
430.4
United S t a t e s
France1 . . .
67.2
Great Britain .
181.5
Hungary . . .
2.9
India . . . .
22.9
8.3
Italy
Japan* . . .
39.2
Netherlands. .
10.7
Poland
. . .
Union of
South Africa .
U.S.S.R.1 . .
21.1
Heavy
Central metalelectric lurgical
stations industries
b
c
d
3.8
6.8
22.7
i
0.8
3.2
1.2 2
5.9
10.1
3.9
i
15.0
5.4
.
. .i
i
i
24.4
19.0 *
17.1 "
3.8 !
i
Total . . . 1,115.6
3.5/
a
i
2
7.1/
12.4
7.6
3.0 !
2.1 2
0.9
8.1 3
6.7
8.3
5.3
3
3
/
0
8.1
2.2
18.6 2
25.3
8.4
21.8
23.7
19.44
14.4
7.2
20.3
31.9
24.0 4
10.1
5.4
15.1
50.0
26.8
2.2
24.0 6
24.3
19.9 3
18.9
7.0
9.7
8
9.3
21.52
13.9
52.7 4
29.3 6
25.4
35.6 3
36.3 2
30.8 3
35.0 5
40.1
h
3
0.4
1.5
0.8
s
a
i
7.6 2
i
i
4
i
1
4.0
6.0
56.0 2
23.0
3
20.12
.3
19.2
0.1
42.5 4
12.7
5
i
26.1 2
31.8
28,5
6.6
1.6
4
12.9
12.1
16.3/
1.6/
11
12.5
118.3
1
13.9
12.9 x
14.8 s
14.8 2
12.0 !
8.3
1.6
e
i
7.1
4.7
3.2
10.1
5.6
7.7
12.2
Steam- General
Doship
manu- mestic
Collie- Railway
transries
trans- factur- heating
port
ing
port
51.6
3
19.6/
2
4.3/
3
22.6
6.2
6.6/
21.0/
General: (a) Production plus imports minus exports, converted into equivalent coal units. — (b) So far
as possible, this category is restricted to the consumption of coal by central gas distributing stations, but
the distinction between gasworks and coking works is often quite vague. — (c) Surplus electric power is
also commercially distributed in many cases by collieries. — (d) Where available, consumption of coal and
coke by blast furnaces, iron and steel works, foundries, etc.; otherwise, metallurgical coke available. —•
(e) Includes consumption for power on account of auxiliary works, affiliated plants, etc., but excluding
consumption on account of affiliated coking works. — (/) So far as practicable, locomotive fuel, excluding
consumption by repair shops, construction works, stations, etc., all such consumption being regarded as
part of heavy metallurgical industry, general manufacturing or both. — (g) To the extent that the data
permit, bunker fuel consumed by vessels plying in domestic trade. — (h) A residual category to be interpreted in the light of the definitions given to all the other groups. — (t) Includes, in many cases, the consumption of coal for heating, not only homes but also workplaces, offices, hospitals, public buildings, etc. Also
includes in most cases consumption of coal by agricultural undertakings, by retail and domestic trade,
and by miscellaneous small industrial enterprises. — (j) Obtained by multiplying tonnage available in
1936 by the indicated national percentages some of which are for earlier years.
2
Germany (1936): 1 Metallurgical coke available for consumption.
General industrial consumption
minus metallurgical coke available.
China (excluding Manchuria) (1934) : 1 Included in general manufacturing. — 2 includes gasworks
and heavy metallurgical industries.
Manchuria (1934): lAU mines.
Spain (1932): 1 Iron and steel works only. — 2 All mines. — s Not separately available. — * Includes
retail and wholesale trade and also steamship transport.
United States (1936) : 1 Consumption of bituminous coal only. Anthracite coal amounts to about one-tenth
of total consumption; about three-fourths of the anthracite is consumed domestically. — 2 coal charged
into ovens by city gas plants (public utilities). — a Consumption of coal by coking works excluding city gas
plants. — * Locomotive fuel by Class 1 railway carriers; repair shop stations, etc., consumed 2.4 percent.
of the bituminous coal in 1929. — s Foreign trade bunkers; in 1929 foreign trade bunkers accounted for
0.8 and domestic trade bunkers (incomplete) for 0.7 per cent, of bituminous coal consumption. — s On the
— 49 —
" domestic " heating in such countries as Germany, the United
States, France and Great Britain. In only one case—that of China
—does the proportion consumed domestically rise notably above
this level (50 per cent.); undoubtedly owing to the backwardness
of China's industrial development. Climatic and housing conditions probably explain the small ratios of domestic to total
consumption of coal in the cases of India (negligible), Spain
(2 per cent.), Italy (7 per cent.) and Japan (10 per cent.). The
relatively low levels for the Soviet Union (12 per cent.) and for
the Union of South Africa (13 per cent.) are probably related
to the extreme emphasis of these countries on heavy metallurgy
in the former, and on mining in the latter, with the availability
of other fuels (firewood, peat) as an important factor at least in
the Soviet Union.
Without going into detailed comparisons, a few other general
facts which emerge from table IX may be briefly summarised.
Thus, in all countries, except Germany, China, and the
Soviet Union, general manufacturing is the largest consumer of
assumption t h a t 100 million tons were consumed domestically; in 1929 domestic and miscellaneous
consumption by small undertakings totalled 122 million tons.
France (1935): i Including consumption by t h e Saar for t h e early part of t h e year. — 2 Blast
furnaces and iron and steel works. — 3 Including coal furnished to miners. — * Included in general
manufacturing.
Great Britain (1936): i Coal and coke consumed by blast furnaces (7.3 per cent.) and by other iron and
steel works (4.7 per cent.) members of the British Iron and Steel Federation. — 2 Coastwise t r a d e only;
foreign trade bunkers amounted to 5.3 per cent, of the production of British coal in 1936. — a E s t i m a t e d
by assuming domestic consumption of approximately 35 million tons.
Hungary (1934): ' Not separately available: included in general manufacturing. — 2 Includes heavy
metallurgical and steamship transport.
i n d i a (1935): 1 Included in general manufacturing. — 2 All bunker fuel; inland steamers separately
2.4 and port undertakings separately 0.6 per cent. — s Including gasworks and central stations as well as
limited a m o u n t s of domestic consumption. — 4 Included in general manufacturing; believed to be very
small.
Italy (1929): 1 Included in domestic consumption. — 2 Including machine shops and other mechanical
works. — s Negligible. — 4 Including 5 per cent, on account of street t r a m s . — <• Including 11 per cent.
on account of construction works. — « Including small amounts for thermo-electric plants and steamship
bunkers.
Japan (1936): 1 Bituminous coal alone; there is also a small consumption of a n t h r a c i t e mainly for
heating. — 2 including colliery fuel. — 3 Included in heavy metallurgical.
Netherlands (1932): 1 Included in general manufacturing. — 2 including heavy metallurgical and collieries.
— s Including 9 per cent, for " other consumers " excluded from general manufacturing.
Poland (1934): 1 Including municipal institutions 2.9 and State institutions 0.9 per cent. — 2 Including
coke plants 11.5, iron foundries 6.5 and other metal foundries 2.1 per cent. — a Included in general m a n u facturing. — * Including collieries, some agricultural fuel and 12.5 per cent, of deliveries to agents. —
& Includes army fuel 1.9 and briquette plants 1.4 per cent.
Union of South Africa (1935): 1 Included in general manufacturing. — 2 All mines. — s Almost entirely
foreign trade bunkers and coal exports. — 4 Including gasworks, central electric stations and heavy
metallurgical.
U.S.S.R. (1936): 1 Deliveries of coal by seven principal coal basins accounting for almost nine-tenths
of the total o u t p u t . — 2 Probably included in deliveries to the Commissariat for H e a v y I n d u s t r y , to coking
plants, or to b o t h . — 3 Including 27.3 per cent, of deliveries to t h e Commissariat for H e a v y I n d u s t r y
and 24.3 per cent, to coking plants. — * Deliveries to the Commissariats for Light Industries, Food I n d u s tries and Forestry.
SOURCES : Various national statistics; various reports submitted to t h e World Power Conference,
Washington, 1936; various Consular reports. Since t h e d a t a for China and Manchuria are given in
different publications, these d a t a are shown separately here and throughout t h e t e x t .
C R . I.
4
— 50 —
coal. The range runs from as low as 6 per cent, in the Soviet
Union to as high as 56 per cent, in the Netherlands. Generallyspeaking, from one-fifth to one-third of the total consumption is
on account of general manufacturing enterprises. The consumption
of coal by the heavy metallurgical industries varies from small
fractions of total consumption in China exclusive of Manchuria to
52 per cent, in the Soviet Union. Although the United States,
France, Great Britain and Japan show substantially similar
quotas for heavy metallurgy (from 12 to 17 per cent.), the
quotas for Germany, India and Poland (20-24 per cent.) are higher.
The proportion of coal consumed as locomotive fuel for railway
transport varies from a minimum of 4 per cent. (Netherlands)
to a maximum of 32 per cent. (Union of South Africa). Central
electric stations and gas-works together have a range of 10 to
about 15 per cent, of total coal consumption; much lower quotas,
however, are found in China, Spain and Poland.
Because of the vague character of the term " general manufacturing ", it would be interesting to examine the coal consumption
of this group of industries at close view. In table X the coal
consumption of general manufacturing in six industrial countries
is broken down, so far as possible, in terms of the fifteen groupings
recognised by the United States Census of Manufactures.
Generally speaking, it would appear that manufacturers of
stone, clay and glass products, including cement, are the most
important consumers of coal in the general manufacturing group;
they are responsible for nearly one-fifth of the group's consumption
in Germany and Japan, and for about one-fourth in the United
States and Great Britain. The textile industries are seemingly
the second most important group. Textiles are followed by chemicals, including petroleum, and by food products.
Because of incomparability of data, few other significant conclusions can be drawn except the obvious importance of the engineering, shipbuilding and vehicle groups in all countries and the
pronounced significance of the paper and printing group in
Germany, the United States, Great Britain and Poland.
It is evident from what has been said above that coal reaches
its final consumption uses by a complicated network of marketing routes. With a view to visualising the process in three
countries of high industrialism, figures I, II and III reproduce
the flow of coal into final and immediate consumption for Germany,
the United States and Great Britain. Particularly to be noted are
the large shares of industrial " consumption " which emerge as
FIGURE I
FLOW OF COAL CONSUMPTION, GERMANY, .1.934
(Amounts in thousands of million calories)
COfìL
n
LIGNITE and BROWN COfìL
PRODUCTION
713000
27000 — IMPOÜTfíTIOn
n
IIÇÇOO
* •
II10O
u
u
Importation
eXPORT»TIOH
TOTfìL
PRODUCTION
3/7000
TOTfìL OI/TRSBUTIOli
329000
OI/TfflBUTIOH
620000
5900
Own
Electric
Consumption Power
/fa/ions
Households
Transportation
Purposes.
Industry
_ Coking Work/
&3S
WorKi
Own
öriiQcsptfe factories House- Tramp, Industry tiectric
Coniumptioo
\
holdi Purp.
Power/talions
LIGNITE and BROWN CORL BRIQUETTE/
.39200
9200
19600
LJ
Ü
LJ
HomeMds
Indujtry
Transp
Purp.
households Tramp. Industry Electr.
Pc/ro.
Power/lattoni
Own Jales
Consumption
COKE OVENS AND GAS WORKS
(Amounts in thousands of million calories)
COfìL
RAW MATERIAL USED
coxeoveN/
IBÌÌOO
PRODUCTION
DISTRIBUTION
t - Losses = i2oo
— Own consumption. 7oo
— Municipal Lighting • i3oo
Own Consumption
Qloo
Industry
ÍS.OOO
Jales
esoo
S O U U C E : LEISSF. and B A L Z E K : Germany's
Sources of Power,
their Development and Utilization,
p p . 4-7. ( T H I B I I W O B L B
P O W E R CorrFEiiENCi!, Washington, 1930: Section I , Paper.1.)
ESTIMATED
CONSUMPTION
O F COAL B Y
A C C O R D I N G TO T H E F I N A L
CENSUS
OF
REPORT
PRODUCTION
FIGURE II
Industrial group
Figures for 1934 are shown thus: ( )
E n g i n e e r i n g ami
shipbuilding
.
Vehicles
Non-ferrous
(Quantities in millions of tons, except where otherwise stated)
.
.
metals.
Paper,
printing
.
9,050
13,924
93
1,021
1,329
3,038
1,298
4 50
023
0,952
228
3,4 24
2,247
407
1,011
8,940
208
3,253
3,983
34 5
4 90
135
2,4 03
and
B r i c k s , p o t t e r y a n d glass
Rubber
1,301
.
.
Mines and q u a r r i e s . . .
P u b l i c u t i l i t y services
and gas u n d e r t a k i n g s
Coke and b y - p r o d u c l s .
All o t h e r i n d u s t r i e s
. .
SRLRNCE
(ai.anrTJB
(iNCWDIHO
PLFtrlTJ)
COIL WHICH If CIERNED
199
1,534
1,733
1,507
3,841
5,142
5,923
303
394
172
253
240
2,433
15,534
18,830
81
13,101
10,377
80
221
37,132
I30.i(l33.l)
2,075
127
42
199
BY HF>HD RICKINO)
2,555
910
91
WET on DRY CLEANED
3,808
2,479
1,045
.
F o r all
purposes
800
85
trades
For
other
purposes
0,198
.
Timber
222.2 (220.7)
1924
Consumption
for all
purposes
492
ill
133
.
stationery
PRODUCTION
1930
2,858
.
Leather trades . . . .
F o o d , d r i n k and tohacco
FOURTH
(1930)
Consumption
For
power
purposes
COAL IN GREAT BRITAIN, 1935
INDUSTRIES
OF T H E
415
18,403
28,780
27,517
18,280
18,300
19,097
20 2
02,074
483
898
99,200
111,400
P/?/NOPf)LLy
FROM
JCOTIRHD
OURHRM
weir RHÔ SOUTH
YORKSHIRE
S ^STRFFOQOSHIRE
CORI PROCE//EO or
36.ofiS.iJ
com. CONSUMED m RfiwjTftre
i8b.2 (ms.t)
OERBY/HIBE
LONO/Hllie
/OUT» WRLES
COKE OVENS * *
I7.lt (16.?)
6f)S WORKS *
I8.0 (17.1)
~~l
1
OQIMROE COKE i
TRR CRUDE BEnZOU
3II.S63
BREEZE »ROÍ
1306.115)
22a(22t)
Hill CO. fi Oomeltid Hi Ilion
fñpprox.) Induilrìùl Galloni
Ule 7.l(6.s) (ñpprox)
Rpprm.% Exp. O.tfO.eJ
dal Workl
of safes
I
LOW TEMPERATURE CÑRBONISÑTION
PLRNTJ
0.3 (0.3)
RTHOHE
133.1 (liQ<)J
HYOR06ENRTI0H
PROCESS
0.3 (-)
FJfPORTEO rrno JtilPPEO m
BUNKER/
S2.B(S</.7)
«S^ÄS»-W','iJ^
CORST WIJÙ
fit (1.3)
RUTHORISEO ELECTRICITY
COLLIERIES
UNOERTRKINCSi TRRMWRY1
lit (II. 7)
RRILWRV RUTHOR1TIE/
Pulverised fc/pf
12.2(11.2)
O.ifo.tl
Pulverized fuel: l.o 11. L)
BfílRNCE * * *
96.l(?<t.o)
Pulverised lupi
2.6 (2.3)
* * * INCLUDE! CÑR60
SHIPMENT/ TO NORTHER/I
IRElRND2.o(2.ljMILL.TorrS
uno (ORL rot DOMESTIC USE
UtliRRl MRNUFRCTURES
ano RU OMEP PURPOSES
**
Type
OF RETORT
VRRIOUICHEMICRU
E.& PURE BENZOLE
TOLUOL
RNTNRRCENE "fr tt
B QURNTITy OF CREOSOTE BHO
" LOW TEMPERRTURE TRR WRS
RIIO HYOR06ENRTEO TOPROOUCC
MOTOR SPIRIT
hORIZONTRL
VERTICRL
INCUNEO
rlORIZS VERTIC.
HORIZ..INCLINED
S VERTICAL
MISCEURNEOUS
A NOT STRTFD
TOTfíL
NO OF PcnceNTftci
UNDEROFCOtìl
TAKINGS CRRßOHISEO
aoo
/94
It
SS
29a
Hi
0.3
28./
9
21.1
107
l.o
1169
100.-
ösiec/ upon information
pablithed
inthe
"GMWORLDYERRBOOK1936"
U N I T E D K I N G D O M DIÍPAIITMENT O F S C I E N T I F I C
o/ the Fuel Research Board for Ihe Year ended
AND I N D U S T B I A I .
31 March 1930.
RESEARCH:
NRVRl
0.2(0.1)
FOREIGN
IZ.S(I3.S)
BRIQUET re WORM
Of (oo)
Practically
ell
exported
REFINED MOTOR SPIRIT
ib(uol
Million Gallons
PITCH MfìDE
O.S(O.Sj
BLINKERS Hf.i (IS.OJ
EXPORTED
36.7(39.7)
ol which "JIIED "CORI
IZ.b(IZ.I)
Indu linai tìdded to
Consumen: is stockit.olu.il
Publics lsitips:i
Dome/littr si
Tomi.iz.afi/.ej
Sounciä:
lieport
I
I
I
CRUDE BENZOLE TÑRMÑOE GRS MROE.ias.sSa(l77.<>l°)COKEMRDE TRRCRUDE SPIRIT FROM 6RS
0.2(OZ)
»ROE
Mil/ion CU.Ft
87BO0O¡7b700O¡
I
|
Ht2(l3b)
S.zflt.2)
Percentage of me/ce:
úalíons
_J
I
Million
Million
COKEiBREZZâ Galloni
Galloni
Type
OF
OVEIi
NQ of
COfíL
OVENSIh CRROOMISEO
USE fmiuoitroiv)
NOM RCCOVCRYOVEHI
BEEHIVE
592
OTHER
i n
RECOVERY OVENS
WRSTEHERT
227A
RE6ENERRTIVE
COMBINRTIOH
iti
OTHERS
¡S79
TOTRL
6901
0.3O
0.0 J
it. ta
2.33
IO.Ot
17.tit
FIGURE 111
FLOW OF COAL CONSUMPTION, UNITED STATES, 1936
(Quantities in million short tons, except where otherwise indicated)
* Converted into
fítÍTHRRCIT£ COfíL IÇ3S * bituminous
at 0.064
ÔITUMINOUJ COfíl
I
I
r
Imp.
WfíiLfíaie
ton anthracite r= 1.000
ton hi 111 m i nuns. 1930
production and consumption was in;
slgnillcantly larger tliau
that of 1935.
P
RAW CORL PRODUCTION
¿tìH-.l
0.3
SUPPLY o? Raw cotu.
423.7
tìddedto
/licks
RAW
J.« r~ * z -°s' s ' J;f
CONSUMPTION
3*9.0
Locomotive
futi 80.B
Otherindustrie/
120.2
(b)
Colliery"^[leclric yieam/hip
' '
Ibwer dunla
Utili fie J'•>•(&})
\
\
'ir
C'J / fu?) Hough estimate M
/
/
/
/
bai Works (eJ
1935
DISTRIBUTION
Percentages:
Industrial . . . 51.6
Commercial . . 18.3
6.7
Traction
. . .
3.0
Street lighting .
2.2
17.4
Agriculture . .
0.8
Domestic . . .
All other. . . .
CONSUMPTION Ol? B I T U M I N O U S CO.A.L
BY US.ES I N 1929
Use
Bituminous
coal
consumed
Net tons
Percent.
of
total
Total coke ovens . . .
Electric power utilities . . . .
Steel works and blast furnaces .
General manufacturing industries:
1. Food and kindred products
2. Textiles and their products
4. Paper and allied producta
5. Printing, publishing, etc. .
6. Products of petroleum and
coal other than coke and gas
7. Chemicals and allied p r o -
118,600,000
12,500,000
131,100,000
22.83
2.40
25.23
76,759,000
10,028,000
80,787,000
42,785,000
23,031,000
14.77
1.93
1G.70
8.24
4.4 3
12,144,000
7,643,000
2,968,000
10,247,000
403,000
2.34
1.47
0.57
1.97
0.08
3,466,000
0.67
8. R u b b e r products . . . .
9. L e a t h e r and lis manufact.
10,440,000
2,306,000
1,434,000
22,046,000
2.01
0.44
0.28
4.24
11. Miscellaneous iron and steel
products, except machín. .
12. Non-ferrous metals . . .
13. Machinery, except transp. .
14. Transportation equipment.
15. Miscellaneous
Total general manufactur.
3,120,000
3,517,000
5,990,000
3,991,000
1,810,000
91,525,000
0.60
0.68
1.15
0.77
0.35
17.62
5,274,000
4,662,000
4,272,000
1.02
0.90
0.82
4,287,000
3,407,000
7,094,000
0.82
0.66
1.48
122,425,000
519,555,000
23.56
100.00
Coal-gas and water-gas plants .
Coal mine fuel
Mines and quarries, ofh. than coal
Bunker:
Foreign
Domestic (incomplete) . . . .
Total bunker
Domestic and all other uses n o t
elsewhere accounted for . . .
Grand total consumed .
ll-¥
u
u
Foundries fìvducer Other Domestic
or
Industrial use
Mater 6a 1 use
(J)
(ft)
2.6
u
Consumed Jotdlor
at plant
other
699. /
Industri»! Trilton
use
Cubic Itet
n
Railroad fuel (all steam roads):
All other (shops, stations, etc.)
Total railroad fuel . . .
Coke ovens:
Blast
Furnaces
(¡)
2.7
Far
S60.1
liil/ion
6athns
P
Rmmonia LiqhtCrudt tisphblene Far Phenol/odium
/..l~i~tM.'/jTyl*
' 1 * .
A . . - . ' . . . 0.1
j * . PhenoUte
OL
/.•
oiino.t
/ulphat*
Derive.
3U
tliilions
1388.7
Million aztftilion
Nit/ion
Miltion
nations
úalhni
Galloni
lb,
lbs
Percentage
I
Percentage
Distribution: /old
Distribution.
¡ôoilerfoelo.) Ulto
Wasted1.7
Openttearth
Heating
Other ñllilated
Consumed. CokeOvens36.3
Boilerfuel u.i
Plants 26.0 /old
at
{Iteti and
IO.it
Refining 9-9
Works
other
affilated
Jold
for-
¡
Plants 32.3
Industria/
Purposes 3.2 [Fueluse 2l,i
City 6as mam [Refining t>2.7
Distribution 22 J
(m)
I
/o/diï.9
Creosote Oil
18.1 Million balloni
Pitch 0.1 Million
Tons
I6U.0
Wined
Rt Works into :
ôenioll9.»
MotorBmtal8i~.7
Foluol19.»
/o/rentt/aphta S.t
Xu/ot U.I
Other Light
Oil Products 6.7
(a) Assuming t h a t domestic t r a d e bunkers equalled foreign t r a d e bunkers (1.6). — (6) Class I roads only. — (c) Assuming that " domestic "
heating was 100.0 minus 1.5 for coal consumed in by-product retorts and 1.6 domestic trade bunkers, plus 0.9 for coal consumed for power by
coke and gas works; includes not only general manufacturing b u t also coal for power by iron and steel and other metallurgical works; also some
locomotive fuel and coal for repair shops, construction works, stations, etc. — (d) Charged into coke ovens a t coking plants not owned by city
gas companies, made up of by-product ovens 58.1; beehive ovens 2.7. — (e) Charged into coke ovens at plants owned by city gas companies 5 1
plus 1.5 (estimated) for coal charged into by-product retorts a t such plants. — (/) Coke works 42.7, g a s w o r k s 4.7. — (0) Coke works 3 2, gas works 0 3
— (fi) Coke works 14.9, gas works 1.6. — (i) At t h e works 26.0; other blast furnaces 38.0. — (j) At t h e works 1.5, elsewhere 0.4. — (ft) A t the'
works 0.6, elsewhere 2.1. — (¿) Coke works 640.5, gas works 59.2. — (m) Very largely domestic use. — (n) Almost entirely for sale. — (0) Including
small amounts purchased or drawn from stocks, etc. — (p) Shipments of industrial size 17.4 minus railway fuel, electric power and possibly including
5.0 of domestic heating. — (q) Shipments of " domestic " size 30.9; local sales delivered to employees, 3.0; imports, 0.6. A large part of steam size
shipments is also consumed domestically.
S O U R C E : U N I T E D S T A T E S , D E P A R T M E N T OF I N T E R I O R , B U R E A U O F M I N E S : Minerals
Year-Book,
1937, c h a p t e r s on coal and coke.
— 51 —
TABLE
X.
RECENT ESTIMATES OF CONSUMPTION
GENERAL MANUFACTURING
OF COAL IN
By Groups of Industries
(In percentage of consumption by general manufacturing) *
Type of industry
Food and kindred products
Textiles and their products
Forest products . . . .
Paper and allied products
Printing, publishing and
allied industries . . .
Chemical and allied products
Products of petroleum
and coal other than
coke and gas . . . .
Rubber products . . .
Leather and its manufactures
Stone, clay and glass products including cement
Miscellaneous iron and
steel products not including blast furnaces,
steel works and machinery
Non-ferrous metals and
their products . . . .
Machinery not including
transportation equipment
Transportation
equipment, land, air, water
Miscellaneous
manufacturing industries . . .
Germany
(1934)
United
States
(1929)
Great
Britain
(1935)
10.3
13.2
11.7
9.7
S.S
13.9
8.3
3.2
11.2
23.6 !
0.4
8.8
0.5
0.7
11.3
12.6
India
(1935)
23.9
a
i
Japan
(1936)
Poland
(1934)
10.9
14.8
18.6 !
11.2
i
5^2 a
i
9.1
24.9
3.8
2.5
0.7
1.2
1.3
1.6
0.8
0.8
24.1
26.6
1.9
17.5 3
3.4
25.1
12.8
l
8.7
18.6
3
3.9
2.7
6.5
5.3
4.4
2.0 a
2.0 2
1.2
12.7
15.8 4
1.8
4
3
23.3 3 • 20.7 *
42.4
6.3 '
6.5»
22.6
* Excluding, so far as possible, consumption by heavy metallurgical industries, central
electric stations, gas and coke works, railway transport, steamship transport, collieries
and also " domestic " heating.
Germany: i Included in miscellaneous. 2 Including 1.1 per cent, for potassium works,
salt works, etc. 3 Including unspecified percentage for railway construction. * Ore
mining, iron and metal production and processing minus consumption of metallurgical
coke by such enterprises.
United States: ! Excluding coal used in iron blast furnaces, steel works and rolling mills.
2 Includes coal consumed in electric railroad repair shops.
Great Britain: 1 The largest consumers of this class are cotton mills, woollen and worsted
mills, textile finishing. 2 Excludes coal consumed by repair shops of railway companies.
India: 1 Included in general manufacturing. 2 Made up of 16.7 per cent, for cotton and
7.2 per cent, for jute mills. 3 Consumption by iron, steel and brass foundries including
engineering workshops minus metallurgical coke available.
Japan: l Cotton mills only; consumption by other textile industries included in general
manufacturing and chemicals. 2 Included in general manufacturing, s Ceramic
Industry; other industries included in general manufacturing. * Consumption by
heavy industry excluding metallurgical coke available. <• Made up of 5.5 per cent.
for Government enterprises and 0.8 per cent, for other industries.
Poland : 1 Included in general manufacturing. 2 Paper mills. 3 Tanning works. * Iron
foundries. <> Other metal foundries.
SOURCES: Production Censuses (United States and Great Britain) and annual mining
reports (other countries).
— 52 —
domestic " use " after coal has been converted into electricity,
gas and coke.
The significance of these facts will be considered further in
Chapter V in their bearing particularly on the problems of overcapacity and variability of demand as these have affected the
development of the coal-mining industry during the post-war years.
CHAPTER IV
THE WORLD PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION
OF COAL
To meet the demand created by its various consumption uses,
coal is mined the world over. The present chapter describes
how the production of coal and its consumption are localised among
the several countries and various regions of the world, and surveys
briefly the changes that have taken place during the post-war
period. The causes underlying these changes are considered in
subsequent chapters.
I. — THE LOCALISATION OF COAL PRODUCTION
Recent investigations indicate that over 50 countries1 are engaged
in the mining of coal (anthracite, bituminous, lignite and brown)
on a commercial scale. In 1936, these countries produced about
1,280.4 million metric tons of coal equivalent 2.
Bituminous alone contributed 87.7 per cent, of the total, anthracite about 7.6 per cent., and lignite about 4.8 per cent.3 But
1
The term " country " is used in the text as being synonymous with
statistical entities for which separate data are given in the documentation
dealing with coal.
2
A number of points with regard to methods of computation of output
should be kept in mind. First, there is the question of choosing the conversion
factors to reduce the many varieties of raw and processed coal to a common
thermal basis. For statistical convenience no account is taken here of divergences
in calorific value between anthracite and bituminous or between the different
types of bituminous coal in different countries (see Chapter II). On the other
hand, lignite and brown coal are converted into coal units thermally equivalent
to the average of anthracite and bituminous on the following basis (coal to
lignite): Austria 3:5; Czechoslovakia 10:17; Germany 2:9; Poland 2:9; Italy
1:4 ; Spain 1:2 ; Greece 1:2; other countries 1:3 (see Statistical Year-Book of the
League of Nations, 1936-37, p. 128). It has here been assumed further that
one ton of coke is approximately equal to 1.333 tons of raw coal, and that
the small difference between the weight of solid fuel briquettes and their
coal content may be safely ignored. Second, there is the question of rendering
comparable, as far as possible, the pre-war and post-war statistics, by making
proper allowance for territorial changes. This can be done as regards the
statistics of output of the major coal-mining districts for which figures are
usually recorded separately.
* The estimates made by the Secretariat of the League of Nations are here
taken as the basis of the computations made, but these estimates have been
adjusted by the Office in the light of the figures published by the Federal
Coal Council (Germany).
— 54 —
despite the wide geographical diffusion of coal mining, the production of coal is concentrated in a small number of countries, as
shown in table I.
TABLE I. — PERCENTAGES OF WORLD OUTPUT OF RAW COAL BY
1934-1936
(Lignite converted into equivalent coal units)
COUNTRIES,
Country
1934
1935
1936
Cumulative
percentage
1936
United States
Great Britain
Germany . .
U.S.S.R. . . .
Japan (a)
. .
India (b). . .
Czechoslovakia
China (excluding
Manchuria) .
Manchuria .
South Africa .
Netherlands .
Australia . .
Canada . . .
Other countries (c)
32.9
19.6
13.6
1.0
7.5
4.2
3.1
2.6
2.3
2.0
1.7
1.8
1.0
1.1
1.1
0.9
0.9
2.6
32.3
19.1
14.9 (d)
(0.9)
8.4
3.9
3.2
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.7
1.8
1.0
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
2.9
34.4
18.1
15.2 (d)
I
(0.9)
8.7
3.6
3.0 (e)
2.3
2.2
1.8
1.7
1.6
0.9
1.2
1.0
0.9
0.9
2.5
Total . .
100.0
100.0
100.0
Total production (nlil
lion metric ton s)
1,144.6
1,179.9
1,280.4
34.4
52.5
67.7
76.4
80.0
83.0
85.3
87.5
89.3
91.0
92.6
93.5
94.7
95.7
96.6
97.5
100.0
(a) Without colonies.
(b) Including Native States.
(c) Of the other countries, the most important are Spain, Hungary, Turkey, Austria,
French Indo-China.
(d) Including the Saar.
(e) Based on flnal estimate (38.1 million tons) instead of provisional (41.0) given in
sources mentioned below.
Computed from Statistical Year-Book of the League of Nations, 1936-37 ; REICHSKOHLENBAT :
Statistiscke Uebersicht, 1936. These sources will be referred to hereafter as Statistical
Year-Booh, 1936-37, and Statistische Uebersicht, 1936, respectively.
It is seen from table I that the United States in 1936 contributed
over one-third of the world's annual output of raw coal. Great
Britain furnished somewhat less than one-fifth; Germany about oneseventh, and the Soviet Union over one-twelfth. These four
countries together are responsible for over three-fourths of the
annual production. Ten countries—the United States, Great
Britain, Germany, the Soviet Union, France, Japan, Poland,
— 55 —
Belgium, India and Czechoslovakia—account for nine-tenths of the
total production.
The extent of concentration of coal production by regions is
shown in table II.
TABLE I I .
PERCENTAGES OF WORLD OUTPUT OF RAW COAL BY
REGIONAL GROUPINGS, 1934-1936
(Lignite converted into equivalent coal units)
Regional grouping
1934
1935
1936
Cumulative
percentage
1936
Western Europe (a)
. . .
North America (b)
U.S.S.R. (c)
Far East (rf)
Eastern and Central Europe
Pacific-Indian Basin (/). .
Balkan and Danubian (g)
Mediterranean (h)
Latin America (i)
Other countries (/)
Total
.
(e)
.
.
41.8
33.8
7.5
6.1
4.7
4.1
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.6
41.2
33.3
8.4
6.3
4.6
4.3
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.4
40.1
35.3
8.7
5.8
4.4
4.0
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.5
40.1
75.4
84.1
89.9
94.3
98.3
98.8
99.2
99.5
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
—
(o) Germany, Belgium, France, Great Britain, Netherlands.
(b) Canada, United States.
(c) In Europe and in Asia.
(d) China, French Indo-China, Netherlands East Indies, Japan.
(e) Austria, Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia.
(;) Australia, India, New Zealand, Union of South Africa.
ig) Bulgaria, Greece, Rumania, Turkey, Yugoslavia.
(li) Algeria, Italy, Spain.
(i) Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, Venezuela.
0) Of these, the most important are Southern Rhodesia and some Japanese colonies.
Computed from Statistical Year-Book, 1936-37; Síaíisíische Uebersicht, 1936.
It appears from table II that the two main regions of coal output
—Western Europe and North America—obtain between them
three-fourths of the world's annual production. The next most
important area is the Soviet Union, with about 9 per cent, of the
total output. Secondary centres of regional concentration are
the Far East, Eastern and Central Europe and the Pacific-Indian
Basin.
The distribution of coal output by continental groupings is shown
in table III.
Somewhat different patterns of international localisation emerge
when bituminous, anthracite and lignite coal are considered
separately.
— 56 —
TABLE III.
PERCENTAGES OF WORLD OUTPUT OF RAW COAL BY
CONTINENTAL GROUPINGS, 1 9 3 4 - 1 9 3 6
(Lignite converted into equivalent coal units)
Continental grouping
1934
1935
1936
Africa
America, N o r t h
America, South
Asia, w i t h o u t t h e U.S.S.R. .
E u r o p e , w i t h o u t t h e U.S.S.R.
Oceania
U.S.S.R
1.2
33.8
0.3
8.6
47.5
1.0
7.5
1.3
33.3
0.3
8.7
46.8
1.1
8.4
1.3
35.3
0.3
8.2
45.2
1.0
Total
100.0
100.0
100.0
Computed from table I, p. 54.
Bituminous Coal. — The localisation of bituminous output,
which totalled 1,121.7 million metric tons in 1936, comes closest
to the pattern for all raw coal. This may be seen from table IV.
TABLE IV. —• TOTAL OUTPUT AND PERCENTAGES OF WORLD OUTPUT
OF BITUMINOUS COAL BY COUNTRIES,
Country
United States
Great Britain
U.S.S.R
France
J a p a n (¿>)
India (c)
Belgium
South Africa
China (excluding Manchuria)
Manchuria
Netherlands
Czechoslovakia
Australia
Canada
O t h e r countries
Total
Output (a)
(million
metric tons)
1936
Percentage
389.3
225.5
158.4
78.8
45.5
38.1
29.8
22.8
22.6
14.8
14.6
11.3
12.8
12.3
11.1
10.3
23.7
34.7
20.1
14.1
7.2
4.1
3.4
2.7
2.0
2.0
1.3
1.3
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.0
0.9
2.1
1,121.7
100.0
Cumulative
percentage
34.7
54.8
68.9
76.1
80.2
83.6
86.3
88.3
90.3
91.6
92.9
93.9
95.0
96.1
97.1
98.0
100.0
(a) Calculated by subtracting output of anthracite and lignite where available from
output of all raw coal.
(b) Without Korea, Formosa and Saghalien totalling 0.7 per cent.
(c) Including 2.0 per cent, for Native States.
Computed from Statistical Year-Book, 1936-37; Statistische Uebersicht, 1936.
— 57 —
Anthracite Coal. — The mining of anthracite coal displays a
pattern of highly concentrated localisation in which the United
States and the Soviet Union predominate. In 1936, of a total world
output of about 97 million tons, over half came from the United
States and more than one-fourth from the Soviet Union. Other
significant suppliers were Great Britain, China, Belgium and French
Indo-China. The data are shown in table V.
TABLE V.
TOTAL OUTPUT AND PERCENTAGES OF WORLD OUTPUT
OF ANTHRACITE COAL BY COUNTRIES, 1936
Production
(million
metric tons)
Country
United States (a)
U.S.S.R. (¿>)
Great Britain (c)
China
Belgium
F r e n c h Indo-China
Other countries (e)
. . . .
. . . .
Total
Percentage
49.8
26.9
6.7
5.3 (d)
5.3(d)
2.0(d)
1.0(d)
51.3
27.7
6.9
5.5
5.5
2.1
1.0
97.0
Cumulative
percentage
51.3
79.0
85.9
91.4
96.9
98.9
100.0
100.0
(a) Pennsylvania anthracite only.
(b) Donetz Basin anthracite only.
(c) South Wales anthracite (5.7) and Scottish anthracite (1.0).
(d) Estimated by the International Labour Office.
(e) These include, in approximate order of importance, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Italy,
French Morocco, Rumania, Bulgaria and Peru.
SOURCES: National coal statistics, supplemented by the United States Bureau of Mines,
International Coal Trade, Vol. V, No. 3, 31 March 1936, p. 10. This publication will be
referred to hereafter as International Coal Trade.
TABLE VI.
TOTAL OUTPUT AND PERCENTAGES OF WORLD OUTPUT
OF LIGNITE AND BROWN COAL BY COUNTRIES, 1 9 3 6
Country
Germany . .
Czechoslovakia
U.S.S.R.
. .
Hungary . .
Austria . . .
Yugoslavia. .
Canada . . .
Other countries (a)
Total .
Production
Converted
Cumulative
(million Conversion production
(million Percentage percentage
ratio
metric
metric tons)
tons)
161.4
2 : 9
58.0
35.8
58.0
15.4
16.1
10 : 17
9.5
73.4
18.0
9.7
1 : 3
6.0
83.1
7.1
4.1
87.2
1 : 3
2.5
2.9
3 : 5
2.8
90.0
1.7
3.7
1 : 3
1.2
91.9
1.9
3.4
1 : 3
1.8
93.7
1.1
11.7
1 : 3(6)
6.3
100.0
3.9
224.3
61.7
100.0
(a) The most important of these are Australia, the United States, Rumania, Bulgaria
and New Zealand.
(6) Except Poland, Italy, Spain, Greece; see p. 53.
SOURCES: Statistical Year-Booh, 1936-37; Statistische Uebersicht, 1936.
— 58 —
Lignite. — Although lignite and brown coal are mined by
about 20 countries in all parts of the world, the great bulk of
the output is supplied by Germany. Czechoslovakia, the Soviet
Union and Hungary are the only other producers of importance. In 1936, the production of lignite and brown coal came to
61.7 million metric tons of coal equivalent, of which Germany
supplied 58 per cent., Czechoslovakia over 15 per cent, and the
Soviet Union almost 10 per cent. The details are shown in table VI.
Coke. — Because a substantial proportion of all coal raised is
consumed in the form of coke and fuel briquettes, a certain interest
attaches to the international localisation of their output. In so far
as metallurgical coke is concerned, over 30 per cent, of the world
output in 1936 was supplied by the United States, and nearly as
much by Germany. Other important producers were the Soviet
Union, Great Britain and France. The relevant data are given in
table VII.
TABLE VII. •— TOTAL OUTPUT AND PERCENTAGES OF WORLD OUTPUT
OF METALLURGICA! COKE BY COUNTRIES, 1936
Country
United States
Germany
U.S.S.R
Great Britain
France
Belgium
Netherlands
British India
Czechoslovakia
Canada
Japan
O t h e r countries
Total
SOUHCE: Statistische
Production
(million
metric tons)
Percentage
o! world
total
Cumulative
percentage
42.0
38.5
18.0
12.7
7.0
4.4
3.0
2.4
2.0
1.9
1.9
2.7
30.8
28.2
13.2
9.3
5.1
3.2
2.2
1.8
1.5
1.4
1.4
2.0
30.8
59.0
72.2
81.5
86.6
89.8
92.0
93.8
95.3
96.7
98.1
100.0
136.5
100.0
Uebersichl, 1936.
As for gas coke, the data for the year 1934 show that Great
Britain is by far the largest producer, with over half of the world
output. Germany, France, the United States and Japan follow at
a considerable distance, as may be seen from table VIII.
— 59 —
TABLE VIII. — TOTAL OUTPUT AND PERCENTAGES OF WORLD OUTPUT
OF "GAS COKE BY COUNTRIES, 1 9 3 4
Country
Great Britain .
Germany . . .
France . . . .
United S t a t e s
Japan
. . . .
Other countries
Total.
Million
metric tons
Per cent.
12.0
4.2
2.0
1.3
1.0
2.7
51.8
18.1
8.6
5.6
4.3
11.6
23.2
100.0
SOURCE: Statistische Uebersicht, 1936.
The production of solid fuel briquettes in 1936 was as follows :
Million
Country
metric tons
Germany
42.2
France
8.1
Belgium
1.6
Netherlands
1.2
Great Britain
0.9
United States
0.8
Spain
0.8
Czechoslovakia
0.6
Other countries
1.3
Total
57.5
SOURCE: Statistische Uebersicht, 1936.
Main Coal-Mining
Per cent
73.4
14.1
2.8
2.1
1.6
1.4
1.4
1.0
2.2
100.0
Districts
Coal mining is concentrated on the national as well as on the
international plane. Within each coal-mining country, the great
bulk of the output is obtained from a few well-defined districts.
A brief analysis of the internal distribution of coal output in
several of the major producing countries for 1936 follows x :
Germany. — Of the output of pit coal, the mines of the Ruhr and
Aachen contributed three-fourths (Ruhr, 70.1 per cent.). The remainder
of the output came from West Upper and Lower Silesia (17.1 per cent.),
(Upper Silesia alone 13.8 per cent.), the Saar (7.6 per cent.), and Saxony
and Lower Saxony (3.5 per cent.). As for lignite, 42.4 per cent, of the
output was mined in Central Germany (that is, mainly Saxony), 30.7
per cent, in the Rhineland (Cologne district), 25.7 per cent. East of the
Elbe, and the small balance in other districts.
Belgium. — Output was more or less evenly distributed among the
five major districts. Charleroi, with 25.8 per cent, and Limburg with
1
The figures given are taken from the national coal statistics of the several
countries concerned.
— 60 —
22.6 per cent, were the most important. Also significant were Lüttich,
18.6 per cent.; Mons, 16.9 per cent, and the Centre, 14.7 per cent.
A small balance of 1.4 per cent, was mined elsewhere.
United States. — About seven-tenths (70.2 per cent.) of the output
of bituminous coal was supplied by the mines of the Appalachian Field
(mainly Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Eastern Kentucky), and
almost a fifth (18.4 per cent.) by those of the Central Field (mainly
Illinois and Indiana-Iowa). The small balance came from the Rocky
Mountain States, the Mid-west, the South-west, Alabama and Washington. Practically all of the anthracite coal was produced in a restricted
area in eastern Pennsylvania.
France. — Over three-fifths of the production was furnished by the
collieries of the Pas-de-Calais (42.3 per cent.) and of the Nord (20.8 per
cent.), and about one-eighth (12.4 per cent.) by those of Alsace and
Lorraine. The remainder came mainly from the Centre and the Midi.
•Great Britain. — Nine coal-mining districts out of twenty-five produced ten million tons or more each and were responsible in the aggregate for 77.5 per cent, of the total output. South Wales, Durham and
South Yorkshire each mined over 14 per cent, of the total; Nottingham.
Lancashire and Cheshire, Northumberland and Lanarkshire each mined
over 6 per cent. Almost all the anthracite was produced in South
Wales; the small balance in Scotland.
India. — As much as 84.4 per cent, of the coal production was furnished by the mines of Bengal and of Bihar and Orissa. The only other
significant producer was the Central Provinces, 9.2 per cent. (1935 figures).
Poland. — The East Upper Silesian collieries yielded 74.2 per cent.
of the national output. The remainder came from the Dombrova
Basin, 19.1 per cent., and from Cracow, 6.7 per cent.
Soviet Union. — By far the most important coal-producing district
was the Donetz Basin with 67.8 per cent, of the national output. The
Kuznetz Basin, 15.6 per cent, and the Moscow district, 6.8 per cent.,
were also individually important. Most of the remainder came from
Kuzel, Caljabin and Karaganda.
T h e p r o d u c t i o n of coal in 1936 b y some of t h e m a j o r p r o d u c i n g
d i s t r i c t s w a s as follows:
In million
In percentage
metric tons
(coal equivalent) of world total
Appalachian Field, bituminous (United
States)
of which West Virginia
Pennsylvania
Eastern Kentucky . . .
Central Field, bituminous (United
States)
of which Illinois
Indiana and Iowa . . .
Ruhr-Aachen District (Germany) . .
Donetz Basin (Soviet Union) . . . .
Pennsylvania anthracite region (United
States)
South Wales District (Great Britain) .
Durham District (Great Britain). . .
276.8
106.6
98.6
35.6
166.5
45.6
19.1
115.1
75.2
49.8
34.4
31.9
21.5
8.3
7.7
2.8
13.0
3.6
1.5
9.0
5.9
3.9
2.7
2.5
— 61 —
iSStÄÄ
(coal equivalent)
South Yorkshire District (Great Britain)
Pas-de-Calais and Nord Departments
(France)
West Upper and Lower Silesia (Germany)
East Upper Silesia (Poland)
. . . .
Bengal and Bihar and Orissa Fields .
(India)
Rocky Mountain States (United States)
Kuznetz Basin (Soviet U n i o n ) . . . .
Central Lignite Fields (Germany) . .
Charleroi and Mons districts (Belgium)
Saar Basin (Germany)
In
Percentage
of world total
30.7
2.4
28.5
2.2
26.2
22.1
2.0
1.7
19.1
18.7
17.3
15.2
11.9
11.7
1.5
1.5
• 1.3
1.2
0.9
0.9
As already suggested in Chapter II, many of the varieties of coal
are also localised not only by countries but also by districts. Some
countries, e.g. France, and to a less extent Japan, are deficient in the
coking coals which are essential to the heavy metallurgical industries. France is obliged to satisfy her requirements by heavy imports
of coke and coal from Germany, Belgium and Great Britain, while
Japan has to draw upon supplies from Manchuria and elsewhere.
In the field of domestic and bunkering coals, to take another
example, a large part of Europe is dependent upon Welsh anthracite
(for household heating), and upon Welsh Admiralty types (for
steamship transport). This localisation of coal varieties has
important economic consequences which are considered in
Chapter VII in connection with problems of inter-district and
international competition.
Post-War Changes in Localisation of Coal Output
Between 1909-1913 and 1925-1929, on the one hand, and between
1929 and 1936, on the other, the international distribution of coal
output underwent many changes. For the most part these changes
were due to variations in the volume of coal mined by countries
independently of any territorial readjustments. In some measure,
however, territorial readjustments affecting mining districts were
also at work to reshape the international distribution of coal
tonnages mined. In summary, the most important of these
political changes included : (1) the acquisition of Alsace-Lorraine
by France; (2) the loss to Germany of Alsace-Lorraine and
East Upper Silesia permanently and of the Saar until 1935; (3)
the establishment of new national States, such as Poland and
Czechoslovakia; and (4) the loss to the Soviet Union of the
TABLE IX.
CHANGES IN THE INTERNATIONAL STRUCTURE OF COAL PRODU
(Lignite converted into equivalent coal units)
A = Pre-War Territory; B = Post-War Territory; B x = with the Saa
In millions of metric tons
1909/13
Average
1913
4G4.6
273.9
182.1
(149.2)
(137.7)
39.4
(42.1)
(36.0)
(25.9)
960.0
517.1
292.0
209.5
(173.3),
(160.1)
40.3
(44.1)
(41.0)
(27.9)
1,058.9
27.9
(23.8)
17.9
f 12.9
36.0
(29.5)
21.3
f 13.8
15.1
6.7
1 (2.3)
1925/29
Average
1929
1936
1909/13
Average
550.5
262.0
439.9
232.2
(215.8)
202.2
194.2
(182.5)
41.0
24.1
16.1
(13.2)
(12.2)
3.5
(3.7)
(3.2)
(2.3)
84.7
Group I
(Bi)
(B2)
(B)
Poland:
(B)
Czechoslovakia: (B) . . .
Group
(196.8)
183.4
51.4
38.0 (e)
26.1
54.2
46.3
29.8
45.5
29.8
21.8
1,074.1
1,145.0
963.4
31.4
33.0
/ 24.5
39.9
34.3
f 25.2
II
U . S . S . R . : (A)
(B)
China
548.4
226.8(d)
\
80.5
16.5
8.0
95.6
I (8.2)
22.5
12.7
124.1
1(10.0)
23.8
13.0
136.2
111.7
38.1
/31.2
1(11.3)
(22.8)
14.8
218.6
2.5
(2.1)
1.6
1.3
0.6
7.1
Group
III
27.9
12.8
4.4 (/)
6.8
3.3
26.9
11.6
7.3
7.7
3.2
7.0
4.0
(0.4)
0.2
31.4
52.6
56.7
56.1
2.8
10.7
11.7
12.6
13.5
13.2
12.6
11.1
13.5
11.9
11.4
0.9
1.0
22.4
26.1
25.8
24.6
23.3
1.9
33.7
(2.7)
(30.2)
(11.5)
33.7
36.5
(3.8)
(32.3)
(13.2)
'36.5
(5.5)
(22.1)
(H.7)
3.0
(0.2)
(2.6)
(1.1)
13.4
(6.1)
(34.1)
13.6
13.6
—
3.0
. . .
6.1
6.5
12.4
13.8
19.0
0.5
World total
1,134.1
1,255.0
1,302.4
1,389.9
1,280.4
100.0
Succession States t o Aust r i a - H u n g a r y (B) (a). .
L a t i n America (b)
. . .
Total above
Group
23.3
1.5
4.0
22.8
1.9
4.2
26.1
9.7
6.7
(5.1)
2.6
(5.4)
2.5
31.4
2.1
0.1
0.4
IV
Australia
Canada
Districts affected by
changes
territorial
Austria-Hungary (A). . .
Alsace-Lorraine
E a s t Upper Silesia . . .
Saar (B)
Other countries (c)
(5.5)
(29.5)(e)
13.4
<a) Made up of Austria, Hungary, Yugoslavia, (b) Made up of Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Peru, Venez
Netherlands East Indies, Formosa, Southern Rhodesia, Rumania, Turkey, (d) If 1926 were excluded,
251.4 million, equal to 19.4 per cent, of the world total also excluding 1926. (e) Excluding 1925 because
Germany in that year. (/) Civil War In 1936: the output for 1935 was 7.2 million, equal to 0.6 per cent,
Computed from LEAGUE OF NATIONS: Memorandum on Coal (1927), Vol. I; The Problem of the Coal Industr
Booh, 1936-37; and from REICHSKOHLENRAT (Germany): Statistische Uebersicht, 1936.
_
64 —
Dombrova Basin which went to Poland. In examining the post-war
changes in coal output internationally, it is thus necessary to take
account not only of entire countries but also of coal-mining districts
which changed their political allegiances. The details are presented
in table IX.
The most noteworthy feature, shown by the above table, is
the heavy fall during the post-war period in the relative importance
of the United States and Great Britain as producers of coal. In
1909-1913, these two countries furnished about two-thirds of the
world's output; in 1925-1929, their contribution had fallen to
about 60 per cent, and, in 1936, had contracted once again to a
little more than half. So far as Great Britain is concerned, its fall
in relative importance reflects a continued downward trend of
tonnage mined, in the face of a world total which rose somewhat
from 1909-1913 to 1925-1929 and fell only moderately between
1929 and 1936. In the case of the United States, its percentage
share continued to contract because the tonnage mined rose
somewhat less rapidly than for the world as a whole, from 1909-1913
to 1925-1929, but fell more heavily than for the world as a whole
between 1929 and 1936.
Germany presents certain complications owing to territorial
readjustments. If the coal output of the pre-war Empire is
compared with that of the Third Reich, as now territorially defined,
the total tonnage has fallen somewhat, as likewise her share of the
world total. On the other hand, the mining districts which at
present belong to Germany produce considerably more coal than
they produced in the pre-war years; their percentage share of the
world total is also larger.
France too presents a special case, owing to territorial readjustments. Accepting its territorial frontiers as given for each of the
two years in question, France produced somewhat more coal in
1936 than in 1913 and was responsible for slightly more of the
world total in the later than in the earlier year. If, however, the
output of Alsace-Lorraine is added to the figure for 1913 or subtracted from that for 1936, the pre-war and post-war totals for
France become practically identical and the variations in percentages of world output insignificant. Poland and Czechoslovakia
show increases between 1913 and 1929, but an absolute and
relative decrease of output between 1929 and 1936.
Just as striking as the fall in the combined importance of the
United States, Great Britain, France, Poland and Czechoslovakia,
considered as a group of " older " industrial countries, is the rise
— 65 —
in the relative importance as coal producers of the Soviet Union,
Japan, China with Manchuria, India and South Africa, considered
as a group of " newer " industrial countries. In 1909-1913, the
several countries which make up the latter group supplied about
7 per cent, of the world tonnage of coal; in 1925-1929, they supplied
9.5 per cent. ; in 1936, over 17 per cent. Where the Russian Empire
mined 36 million tons of coal in 1913, the Soviet Union mined
112 million tons in 1936; over the same period, Japan raised its
output of coal from 21 to 38 million tons, China as a whole from
16 to 33 million, India from 17 to 23 million and South Africa from
8 to 15 million1.
Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, the Latin-American countries and
certain Succession States to Austria-Hungary may also be taken
as a group which, thanks to a considerable enlargement of tonnage
mined, has significantly increased its share of the world output.
Particularly phenomenal in rate of increase, although the tonnages
involved are limited, has been the rise of the Netherlands coal production, from 2 million tons in 1913 to about 13 million tons in 1936.
In Australia and Canada, the 1936 level of output was measurably
below that of 1913 ; relative world status also declined somewhat.
The post-war changes in the international localisation of coal
output are the outcome of many tendencies, some of them common
to all producers, some of them peculiar to individual countries 2.
The main factors of change, in addition to the varying force of
cyclical fluctuations between countries, have been national diver1
Preliminary world figures for 1937 indicate a considerable rise of output
of coal and lignite (converted) to a level of about 1,358 million metric tons
of coal equivalent. Output of coal alone went up to 1,288 million metric tons;
that of lignite (unconverted) expanded to 254 million. Germany's output of
coal and lignite (converted) in 1937 was 225 million tons, thus surpassing
output of 1913 and 1929. Great Britain's output in 1937 was about 245 million
tons, very near the average output of 1925-1929. In the United States the
rise in output during 1937 was more moderate than in Germany or Great
Britain, the total rising to 446 million tons (of which bituminous 400 million).
Provisional figures for output of coal and lignite by other major mining
countries (in million metric tons): U.S.S.R., 111; France, 45; Japan, 44;
Poland, 36; Belgium, 30; Czechoslovakia, 28; India, 25; South Africa, 15;
Netherlands, 14; Australia, 13; Canada, 12. (Computed from Statistische
Uebersicht (Reichskohlenrat) 1937.) The general increase in the production
of coal during 1937 was due to an enlarged industrial demand, particularly
for coking eoals and metallurgical coke, due in part to the industrial upswing
and in part to the needs of rearmament.
3
For an interesting analysis of changes in the international localisation of
coal output due to different causes such as the opening up of new mines, the
development of coal mining as a consequence of war-time shortages, the
repercussions of territorial changes arising out of the Treaties of Peace, etc.,
see the study by the Institute for Business Cycle Research (Germany) in
Energiequellen der Welt, p. 15.
CR. I.
5
— 66 —
gences with regard to (a) success in achieving economies in the
utilisation of coal, (b) the displacement of coal by other fuels,
(c) the pursuit of policies of economic nationalism, (d) shifts in the
total structure of demand for the several types and grades of coal,
and (e) last but not least, the spread of industrialism to new countries. The combined effects of the various trends, partly cumulative, partly contradictory, set up by these five factors in each of
more than 50 coal-mining countries, cannot be summed up in a
single formula. On the whole, however, it is permissible to speak
of a tendency for coal mining to become more decentralised internationally. The specific incidence of the several factors at work
during the post-war years to reshape the international structure
of coal production will be discussed in the three chapters which
follow.
II. — THE LOCALISATION OF COAL CONSUMPTION
Coal is consumed in all parts of the world, but despite such wide
diffusion, its consumption is largely concentrated in a limited number of countries1. Over one-third of the world's coal consumption
takes place in the United States, about 15 per cent, in Great Britain
and about 13 per cent, in Germany, nearly 9 per cent, in the Soviet
Union and over 5 per cent, in France; thus, over three-fourths of
the coal tonnage of the world is consumed in five countries.
Twelve countries (the five referred to, together with Japan,
Belgium-Luxemburg, Canada, India, Poland, Czechoslovakia and
China) account for nine-tenths of the total world consumption.
The details are shown in table X.
The extent to which consumption is concentrated regionally
appears in table XI. Over three-fourths of the world's tonnage is
consumed in North America and Western and Central Europe
1
In presenting statistics of coal consumption, in the absence of particulars
for many countries, the formula used is that which expresses " apparent
consumption " of coal for given countries in given years. The formula—with
all the individual elements converted into equivalent raw coal units—is:
Production of raw coal and lignite 4- imports of raw coal, lignite, coke and
briquettes —• exports of raw coal, lignite, coke and briquettes = apparent consumption. As reliable information can be had for only a small number of
countries, this formula ignores possible net additions to, or net deductions from,
the stocks of coal held by producers and consumers during the course of the
year. Owing to lack of data, the formula also ignores the differences between
that part of bunker loadings (foreign trade) which may properly be regarded as
exports and that part which might be attributed to domestic consumption.
In the case of Great Britain, for example, it makes a considerable difference
in the national volume of coal consumption if all bunker loadings by merchant
vessels in foreign trade are counted as exports of coal as is done in table X.
For the statistical difficulties involved, see Chapter V.
— 67 —
TABLE X. — WORLD CONSUMPTION OF COAL, BY CONSUMING AREAS,
1934-1936
(Lignite,
coke and briquettes
converted
into equivalent
coal
units)
Percentage of world total
United States
Great Britain
„ I without Saar .
n„
Germany j w i t h g a a r
U.S.S.R
France
' without Saar .
*rance
1 with Saar . . .
Japan
Belgium-Luxemburg. . . .
Canada
India
Poland
Czechoslovakia
China (excluding Manchuria)
Manchuria
South Africa
Netherlands
Australia
Italy
Sweden
Denmark
Spain
Austria
Switzerland
Hungary
Norway
Other countries (ft) . . . .
Total
World consumption (million
metric tons)
1934
1935
1936
Cumulative
percentage
1936
32.8
15.0
11.7
32.2
14.8
34.3
14.5
34.3
48.8
12.6
8.5
5.8
12.8
8.8
5.4
61.6
70.4
75.8
5.9
3.3
2.6
2.2
2.0
1.7
1.6
1.9
0.7
1.0
1.1
0.9
1.2
0.7
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
3.5
3.6
2.4
2.0
2.0
1.7
1.6
1.8
0.7
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.4
0.7
0.5
0.7
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
2.7
3.3
2.3
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
0.6
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
3.0
79.1
81.4
83.3
85.1
86.8
88.4
89.9
90.5
91.5
92.4
93.3
94.1
94.8
95.3
95.7
96.1
96.4
96.7
97.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
7.6
1.109.5(a) 1.147.6(a) 1.247.3(a)
(a) The differences between the figures of consumption and the figures of production
(see table I) are due, among other things, to the manner in which bunker fuel (foreign
trade) is treated in the trade returns, to discrepancies arising out of trade " in transit ",
to changes in stocks held by collieries, industrial consumers, wholesale dealers, etc.
(6) Of these the most important are Argentina, Brazil, Ireland and Yugoslavia.
Computed from Statistical Year-Booh, 1936-37; Statistische Uebersicht, 1936.
together. The Soviet Union and the Asiatic-Far Eastern countries
also constitute important consuming centres.
The relative levels of coal consumption in different countries
may be best expressed by means of per capita figures. Table XII
shows the per capita consumption of coal by consuming countries
during recent years. These figures reflect the comparative extent
— 68 —
TABLE XI.
WORLD CONSUMPTION OF COAL BY GROUPS
OF COUNTRIES,
(Lignite,
coke and briquettes
1934-1936
converted
into equivalent
coal
units)
(In percentages of world total)
Group of countries
1934
1935
1936
Cumulative
percentage,
1936
North America (a) . . .
Western Europe (ft):
with Saar
without Saar
Central Europe (c) :
with Saar
without Saar
U.S.S.R. (d)
Asiatic-Far East (e). . .
South Africa-Oceanic (/).
Scandinavian-Baltic (g) .
Mediterranean (h)
Latin America (i)
. . .
Balkan-Danubian (/) . .
Other countries
Total
.
35.0
34.2
36.2
36.2
24Ì2
23.3
59Ì5
25.8
.
.
.
.
.
16.9
17.1
76.6
lô!l
7.6
8.0
2.0
1.7
2.2
0.6
0.7
0.3
8Ì5
8.1
2.0
1.8
2.4
0.7
0.7
0.5
8.8
7.3
2.0
1.8
1.5
0.6
0.6
0.8
85Ì4
92.7
94.7
96.5
98.0
98.6
99.2
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
—
(a) United States, Canada.
<i» Belgium-Luxemburg, France, Great Britain, Ireland, the Netherlands.
(c)
(d) Germany, Austria, Hungary, Poland, Switzerland, Czechoslovakia.
(e) In Europe and in Asia.
(/) China, India, Japan, Netherlands East Indies.
(0)
Australia, New Zealand, Union of South Africa.
Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Sweden.
Algeria, Egypt, Spain, Italy, Portugal.
Computed
from Statistical
Year-Book,
Statistische Uebersicht, 1936.
Argentina,
Brazil, Chile,
Mexico,1936-37;
Venezuela.
Bulgaria, Greece, Rumania, Turkey, Yugoslavia.
(h)
(t)
(3)
of industrialisation, availability of other forms of energy supply,
national standards of housing, climatic conditions, cyclical
fluctuations, etc.
The highest per capita consumption of coal is found in Great
Britain, the United States and Belgium—with from 3.5 to 3.9 metric'
tons per person per year. Germany and Canada form the next
highest consumption group at a level just below 2.5 tons. In other
countries the per capita consumption is lower, falling below
100 kilograms yearly in such countries as China, the Netherlands
East Indies, Rumania, Peru and Siam.
Even among the industrialised countries of Western Europe, the
range extends from as high as 3.9 tons in the case of Great Britain
to as low as 0.8 tons in the case of Switzerland. In Asia, the per
capita consumption of Japan is six times as high as that of India,
— 69 —
TABLE XII.
PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION OF COAL PER YEAR, BY
CONSUMING COUNTRIES, 1 9 3 4 - 1 9 3 6
(Lignite,
coke and briquettes
converted
into equivalent
coal
units)
(In metric tons)
Great Britain .
Belgium . . .
United States
Germany •! with Saar . .
without Saar .
Canada
Australia
Denmark
ith Saar
France |' wwithout
Saar.
1934
1935
1936
3.6
3.5
3.0
3.7
3.4
3.0
2.2
3.9
3.5
3.5
2.4
2.2
1.6
1.6
2.3
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.6
2.0
2.3
1.4
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.5
1.5
Netherlands
1.2
1.4
1.3
Czechoslovakia . . . .
1.3
1.4
1.1
Sweden
1.4
1.5
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.1
Union of South Africa
0.9
0.9
0.9
Norway
0.8
0.8
0.9
New Zealand
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.6
Ireland
0.8
0.7
0.7
Switzerland
0.6
0.7
0.6
U.S.S.R
0.6
0.6
0.6
Austria
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
Poland
0.4
0.4
0.4
Japan
0.4
0.4
0.3
Finland
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.3
Hungary
0.4
0.2
0.3
Chile
0.2
0.2
0.3
Latvia
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
Argentina
0.2
0.1
0.1
Italy
0.1
0.1
0.1
Spain
1 0.2
| 0.2
Manchuria
| 0.3
Yugoslavia
Computed
from Statistical Year-Book, 1936-37; Statistische Uebersicht, 1936.
Portugal
Greece
whileIndia
that of China is almost negligible—differences which are
due mainly
China to differences in the extent of industrialisation.
Manchuria
Changes in the Localisation of
Consumption
The changes which have taken place since 1913 in the international structure of coal consumption are the results of many
factors such as population growth, industrial development, interfuel competition, fuel economies, technological progress, changing
— 70 —
standards of housing, etc., which are discussed elsewhere 1 .
changes themselves are shown in table X I I I :
The
TABLE XIII. —
AND
CHANGES IN
COAL CONSUMPTION, PRE-WAR
POST-WAR
(Lignite,
coke and briquettes converted into equivalent coal
units)
A = Pre-war Territory; B = Post-war Territory; B1 = with the Saar;
B* = without the Saar; B3 = with Luxemburg
P e r cent, of
world total
A m o u n t consumed
(million metric tons)
Per capita consumption
(metric tons)
Country
1909- 1913 1925/29 1929
1913
United States .
Great Britain .
G e r m a n y : (A)1
( S 2)
(B )
France:
(A)
( B 2i )
(B )
Austria-Hungary
(A)
U.S.S.R.: (A)
(B)
Canada
Belgium: (A)
(B3)
Japan
India
(China
(Manchuria . .
Australia . . .
Italy
Netherlands . .
South Africa
.
.
443
184
162
.
.
.
.
•
:
—. —
—
—
61
62
— ——
— —
.
.
.
.
489
192
179
41
34
48
46
—
23
—
29
25
27
—
16
—
22
15
14
16
14
.
.
—8 —
11
.
—7
. .
6
5
3
4
2
3
2
11
10
7
7
6
4
4
3
3
2
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Switzerland . . .
Argentina. . . .
Chile
New Zealand . .
Post-War
Succession States:
Poland
. . . .
Czechoslovakia
Austria . . . .
Hungary . . .
World total (a)
10
520
178(6)
527
179
—
—
—
166
—
94
—.
—
—
39
. — •
147
—
86
—
_—
—.
29
1936
1913 1929
1936
428
181
39.0
15.3
14.3
39.4
13.4
34.3
14.5
—.
—
12.4
—
12.8
4.9
—
6.0
—
—
—
2.9
—
—
—
—
67
160
.—.
—
29
31
110
24
—
34
—
38
—
28
—
12
—
11
26
24
8
4
31
22
15
13
11
8
10
6
3
3
3
1
2
1,134 1,255 1,251
33
23
15
—
•
—
—
3.8
3.7
—
2.3
2.2
2.3
•
—
—
1.8
1.3
1.1
2.8
2.5
1.7
1.0
—
—
0.8
15
13
9
11
7
4
3
3
1
2
41
22
26
(7)
11
10(c)
12
6(d)
12
9
3
3
2
2
1
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
33
28
9
5
21
20
5
4
—
—
—.
—
1,339 1,247
100
1.1
1.0
0.7
0.8
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
2.4
2.1
0.7
0.4
—
—
—
—
5.4
1913
5.1
4.2
2.7
5.0
4.1
—
—
1.6
—.
—
—.
2.7
—.
—
1.0
0.3
8.8
1.9
—
4.0
—
2.3
3.5
3.3
1.8
2.1
(0.6)
0.9
0.8(c)
0.9
0.4(d)
1.0
0.7
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
1.7
1.6
0.4
0.3
100.0 100.0
1929
—
—.
—
—
—.
0.3
2.3
3.5
—
5.0
0.4—
0.5
0.05
0.1
0.03(e) 0.03(e)
—
2.2
0.3
1.4
0.4
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.5
0.1
0.8
1.5
—,
—.
—
—
—
2.1
0.4
1.9
0.4
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.4
0.1
0.3
1.3
1.2
2.0
1.4
0.6
1936
3.5
3.9
—
—
—
—
1.6
2.4
—
—.
0.8
2.3
—
3.5
0.6
0.1
0.06(e)
(0.2)
1.7
0.2(c)
1.5
0.3(d)
1.2
1.4
0.8
0.4
0.1
0.4
0.9
0.7
1.4
0.7
0.4
0.70(/) 0.74(/) 0.57(/)
0.92(3) 0.90(9) 0.74(s)
(a) Including other countries, (ft) Excluding 1926 because of coal strike; with 1926, 166 million
tons, (c) Ethiopian affair and sanctions; in 1935, Italy consumed 16 million tons, equal to 1.4 per cent.
of world total and 0.4 tons per capita, (d) Civil War; in 1935, Spain consumed 8 million tons, equal
to 0.7 per cent, of world total, and 0.4 tons per capita, (e) Population estimates for China are subject
to extremely wide margins of error. (/) Including China, (g) Excluding China.
SOURCES: LEASUE OF NATIONS: Memorandum, on Coal (1927), Vol. I; The Problem of the Coal Industry
(1929);
The Coal Problem (1932). REICHSKOHLENRAT (Germany): Statistische Uebersicht, 1936.
1
See Chapters V and VI.
— 71 —
As indicated by table X I I I , practically the same total tonnage
of coal was consumed by the world as a whole in 1936 as in 1913.
But in so far as individual countries are concerned, three groups
may be distinguished: (1) those which consumed more coal in
1936 than in 1913 ; (2) those which consumed less coal in the later
than in the earlier year; and (3) those which consumed practically
the same volume in both years. The Soviet Union, Japan, India
and China with Manchuria, are the most important members of the
first group ; this group raised its consumption from 132 million tons,
or 11 per cent, of the world total in 1933, to 245 million tons, or
20 per cent, of the world total, in 1936. The details are as follows:
Coal consumption (in
million metric tons)
1913
1936
Country
14
26
3.7
1.8
1.3
1.1-
11
10
7
6
13 (a)
12
12
9
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.5
1.1
0.9
1.0
0.7
10.7
19.7
46
22
16
U.S.S.R. . . .
Japan
India
China
I
Manchuria | '
Italy
Netherlands . .
South Africa . .
Sweden . . . .
Total
Percentage of
world total
1913
1936
132
110
41
22
245
8.8
3.3
1.8
2.1
(a) Average of 1935-1936 because of Ethiopian war and sanctions.
The United States, Great Britain, Austria-Hungary (and its
Succession States), and Canada are the leading members of the
second group whose total consumption fell from 774 million tons,
or 61.5 per cent, of the world aggregate in 1913, to 678 million tons,
or 54.3 per cent, of the aggregate in 1936. The details for this group
are as follows:
Coal consumption (in
million metric tons)
1913 |
1936
Country
United States
Great Britain
Austria-Hungary
Succession States
Canada
Minor consumers (¿>)
Totals
489
192
1 48
428
181
Percentage of
world total
1913 |
1936
39.0
15.2
1 3.8
1 34(a)
. . .
29
16
24
11
2.3
1.2
774
678
61.5
34.3
14.5
1 2.7(a)
1.9
0.9
54.3
(a) Including the whole consumption of Austria, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, as well
as one-fourth of the consumption of Poland.
(6) Includes Argentina, Brazil, Chile, New Zealand, and Switzerland.
— 72 —
Germany, France, Belgium, Australia and Spain make up the
third group; with rough adjustments for territorial changes, these
countries consumed about 270 million tons, or 21.5 per cent, of the
world total of 1913 and 273 million tons, or 22.0 per cent., in 1936.
The details for this group are as follows:
Coal consumption (in
million metric tons)
Percentage of
world total
Country
Germany
France .
Belgium .
Australia
Spain
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Total
1913
1936
163 (a)
160
62
27
11
7
270
67(0)
28
7
7 (c)
273
1913
1936
13.0 (a)
4.9
2.2
0.9
0.6
12.8
5.4 (b)
2.3
0.9
0.6
22.0
21.5
(a) Subtracting one-half of the output of East Upper Silesia, ceded to Poland after
the World War.
(b) The difference between 1913-1936 is almost entirely owing to the acquisition of
(c) Average of 1935-1936, because of Civil War in 1936.
In their entirety, therefore, the figures of total consumption give
approximately the same results as those of total production;
in the use of coal as well as in its mining, North America and
Western and Central Europe have been of decreasing importance,
while the Soviet Union and the Far East have acquired more
weight. At bottom, this shift must be ascribed to the industrialisation movement in the Soviet Union and Japan, above all,
and in China (with Manchuria) and India to a lesser extent; a
supposition which is strongly confirmed when the data for the per
capita consumption of coal are examined. For the world as a
whole, the per capita consumption declined between 1913 and 1936
from 0.70 tons to 0.57 tons (including China), or from 0.92 tons to
0.74 tons (excluding China). Particularly large was the fall of
consumption per head in the United States, Great Britain, Canada,
Australia, Chile and New Zealand, as shown below:
PER CAPITA COAL CONSUMPTION
(In metric tons)
Country
United States
Great Britain
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Chile
1913
1936
5.1
4.2
4.0
2.2
1.5
0.8
3.5
3.9
2.3
1.7
0.9
0.4
— 73 —
Little or no change of per capita consumption took place, allowing
for territorial adjustments, in Germany, France, Austria-Hungary
(and its Succession States), Argentina, Brazil, Spain, Italy, the
Netherlands, South Africa and Switzerland. The details are as
follows :
PER CAPITA COAL CONSUMPTION
Country
Germany
France
Netherlands
South Africa
Argentina
Switzerland
Spain
Italy
Brazil
(a) Figure for 1935.
(t>) Average for 1935-1936.
(In metric tons)
1913
2.7
1.6
Czechoslovakia
I
. . .
Poland
Austria
Hungary
1936
2.4
1.6
1.4
0.7
0.7
0.4
1.5
1.2
0.4
0.8
0.4 (a)
0.3 (b)
0.1
1.4
1.2
0.5
0.9
0.4
0.3
0.1
Finally, a considerable rise in per capita consumption occurred
in the Soviet Union, Japan, India, China with Manchuria, and
Sweden, as shown below.
PER CAPITA COAL CONSUMPTION
(In metric tons)
Country
1913
U.S.S.R
0.3
Japan
0.4
India
0.05
China
0.03
Sweden
1.1
1936
0.8
0.6
0.1
0.06
1.4
To sum up, in 1936, as in 1913, the bulk of the world's coal was
being consumed in the older centres of industrialism: the United
States, Great Britain, Germany, France and Belgium. But the
countries of a more recent industrialism, such as the Soviet Union,
Japan, the Union of South Africa and Sweden, were consuming a
larger part of the world total in 1936 as compared with 1913.
In 1936, also, the per capita consumption of coal by the older
industrial countries was many times larger than the consumption
of the newer industrial centres. But the spread in relative levels of
consumption between the two groups of countries was considerably
less than it had been in 1913.
CHAPTER V
THE PROBLEM OP "SURPLUS CAPACITY"
The shifts in the world production and consumption of coal
described in the preceding chapter are the direct outcome of the
changes which have taken place in the relations of supply and
demand in the industry. On the other hand, the changing relations of supply and demand have wrought material changes
in the channels and structure of the coal trade, both nationally
and internationally.
An examination of the supply-demand
relations in the coal-mining industry will thus throw light
on the development of production and consumption described in
earlier chapters, and on the problems of the coal trade to be
presented in the chapters which follow.
It is the opinion of most students of the coal-mining industry
that its internal relations of demand to supply have been in a
state of unbalance for many years and t h a t as a result the main
problem of the industry has been that of " surplus capacity ".
In 1929, the Economic Committee of the League of Nations found
that a " large margin of surplus capacity " was an essential characteristic of coal mining on the international plane, and that the
pressure of over-capacity lay " at the root of the present coal
problem " 1. Defining surplus capacity as " the difference between the amount which existing mines, without any additional
investment of fixed capital, could produce and the amount of actual
output ", the Economic Committee concluded that there were
margins of surplus capacity in European countries amounting to
one-fourth in Germany, from one-fourth to one-third in Great
Britain, and about one-half in Poland 2 . More generally, and
with reference to the combined capacity of European countries
and the United States, it was found t h a t :
The evidence shows that the present capacity of the United States
of America is extremely elastic and that Europe can produce all the
1
2
The Problem of the Coal Industry, p. 8.
Ibid. pp. 8, 9.
— 75 —
coal that she and external markets require while working far below her
full capacity. The two great producing continents of the world have
developed the power to supply while demand lies quiescent 1 .
The main purpose of the present chapter is to describe the
trends in the supply-demand factors of the coal industry and to
examine how far and why coal mining has tended, throughout
the post-war period, to develop a capacity for greater output
than the world market was capable of absorbing at profitable
prices. The several factors which have acted to expand or contract
the demand for coal and the forces which have acted to maintain
or even enlarge output capacity will be considered in turn.
I. THE TREND OF THE DEMAND FOR COAL
Throughout the nineteenth century and down to the outbreak
of the World War, the world demand for coal was developing at
the rate of about 4 per cent, a year 2. The pre-war years thus
constituted for coal mining a period of prosperity but little broken
by cyclical depressions. To quote again the Economic Committee
of the League of Nations:
Before the war there was a steady increase in the demand as determined by the rate of increase in world production and trade generally,
and averaging about 4 per cent, per annum, which gave the (coalmining) industry prosperity, developed it gradually, and helped it to
rally rapidly from the effects of any passing depression 3.
After 1920, the world demand for coal began to undergo radical
changes. From 1920 to 1926 inclusive, the tonnage of coal mined
each year (coal plus lignite calculated in terms of coal) fell somewhat below the level of 1913. Not before 1927 was the pre-war level
of output passed ; and then only by a slight margin. The maximum
output of 1929 was only 11 per cent, higher than t h a t of 1913.
Thus, between 1913 and 1929 the demand for coal was rising on the
average by only 0.7 per cent, yearly; between 1920 and 1929,
however, at about twice this rate. Details are given in table I.
After 1929, the demand for coal sagged heavily in consequence
of the Great Depression. The liquidation of this crisis, beginning
1
2
Ibid., pp. 9, 10.
In 1860 the world production of coal and lignite (unconverted) amounted
to 138.2 million metric tons; in 1870, it was 235.7 millions; in 1880, 337.0; in
1890, 513.5; in 1900, 772.2; in 1910, 1,165.0; in 1913,1,345.1 (Energiequellen
der Welt, pp. 52, 55). Over the interval of half a century, in other words, the
world's output of coal had multiplied almost tenfold.
3
The Problem of the Coal Industry, p. 10.
— 76 —
TABLE I.
WORLD OUTPUT OF COAL AND LIGNITE, 1909-1929
(Million metric tons)
Year
or period
Coal
1909-1913 . . .
1913
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926 . . . . .
1927
1928
1929
1,102.8
1,216.3
1,192.5
993.2
1,061.8
1,205.3
1,189.0
1,185.1
1,117.1
1,275.2
1,246.1
1,325.1
Lignite
116.3
128.8
157.5
168.4
182.7
163.4
173.1
186.9
187.7
202.9
219.4
232.4
Coal and
lignite
(in terms of
coal)
1,134.1
1,255.0
1,234.4
1,036.4
1,108.0
1,246.8
1,233.1
1,237.3
1,229.7
1,331.9
1,306.9
1,389.9
Index
1913 = 100
90
100
98
83
88
99
97
08
97
106
104
111
SOURCES: Problem of the Coal Industry (1929); Energiequellen der Welt, 1936.
in 1932-1933, and the recovery of 1935-1937, did not, however,
bring about a corresponding expansion in the demand for coal.
Although the volume of industrial activity in 1937 was well
comparable with that of 1929, the output of coal in 1937 was
2 per cent, below that of 1929 and only 8 per cent, above that
of 1913. Over the course of nearly a quarter of a century, then
—between 1913 and 1937—the world demand for coal progressed
at the very slow average rate of 0.3 per cent, yearly 1 .
The development of the demand for coal from 1929 to 1937 is
shown in table II.
TABLE II.
Year
1913 . . . .
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937*
WORLD OUTPUT OF COAL AND LIGNITE, 1929-1937
(Million metric tons)
Coal and
Index
lignite
Index
Coal
Lignite
1913 = 100
(in terms of 1929 = 100
coal)
1,255.0
1,216.3
128.8
90
100
100
111
1,325.1
232.4
1,389.9
92
101
1,216.9
197.2
1,272.1
81
90
1,074.5
181.6
1,125.6
74
81
955.2
170.2
1,022.2
84
1,000.0
174.4
1,049.0
75
82
91
1,088.0
191.3
1,144.6
85
90
1,111.5
205.8
1,179.9
92
102
1,218.7
224.3
1,280.4
98
108
1,288.4
253.7
1,357.8
Preliminary figures.
SOURCES: Energiequellen der Welt, 1936; International Coal Trade, 31 March 1938.
1
For rise in coal output during 1937, see Chapter IV, p. 65.
— 77 —
Consistently with the mixed character of the demand for coal 1 ,
the cyclical fluctuations of coal output between 1925 and 1937
had a wider amplitude than those of steel, copper, aluminium,
rubber, sulphur, etc., but were narrower in range than those of
textiles, cereal foods, meat, tobacco, etc.2 What is even more
significant is the fact that the volume of coal output was smaller
in 1937 than in 1929 although the output of hydro-electric energy,
petroleum and natural gas from 1925 on, tended to steadily higher
levels.
II.
FACTORS OF THE DEMAND FOR COAL
The factors which affect the demand for coal fall into two
opposite groups: factors of expansion and factors of contraction.
To the first group belong:
(a) the growth of population;
(b) the expansion of industrial output;
(c) the increased coal requirements of particular industries
which have been in process of growth;
(d) new uses for coal;
(e) new techniques of coal consumption.
To the -second group belong :
(a) the depressed status of such important coal-consuming
industries as railway and steamship transport;
(b) the displacement of coal as a fuel by mineral oils, natural
gas and water power;
(c) its displacement as a raw material by the process of obtaining
more steel through the re-melting of scrap and less through
the smelting of iron ore;
(d) higher levels of fuel efficiency in the coal-consuming
industries, particularly iron and steel manufacture, electricity supply, railway and steamship transport.
The total effects on the demand for coal are a resultant of the
operation of all these factors in various combinations. For the
sake of clarity, however, the two groups of forces are treated here
separately, and each factor is considered by itself.
1
2
For various uses of coal, see Chapter III, pp. 44-52.
For index numbers of the output of primary commodities, see LEAGUE OF
NATIONS: World Production and Prices, 1936-37, pp. 99-100.
— 78 —
A. Factors of Expansion
The Growth of Population
Population growth operates to expand the long-run demand
for coal. It calls for more housing and thus for a greater consumption of coal to provide heat, electricity and gas. It also requires
the production of a larger volume of goods and services and thus
operates to expand the coal consumption of industrial, commercial
and public enterprises.
Throughout the nineteenth century and until the outbreak
of the World War, the rapid growth of world population was
one of the underlying factors of the growing demand for coal.
More recently, however, population growth has been slowing
down, at least in the industrially developed countries, a fact to
which part of the slowing down in the growth of the demand for
coal in the post-war years must be attributed.
The influence of population trends on the demand for coal must
be evaluated, however, in the perspective of prevailing or changing
standards of living. The qualification is of the greatest importance.
Although statistical data are lacking, it is generally known that
the households of low-income families in most countries are far
from sufficiently heated or equipped with adequate facilities for
electricity and gas. Given larger purchasing power, large numbers
of low-income families would certainly buy more fuel to heat
their homes and would also increase their use of electricity and gas.
This is obvious, in view of the fact that standards of housing rise
with higher family incomes, so that improved housing would
in most countries stimulate a larger demand for coal for domestic
uses.
Industrial Expansion
Improved standards of housing are only a particular instance
of the general rule that the production of a larger "national dividend"
must express itself in a greater consumption of coal, particularly
by industrial undertakings which are responsible in most countries
for the great bulk of coal consumed. Subject to the limiting
effects of the factors making for curtailment in the use of coal,
the long-run growth of industrial production necessarily implies
a long-run growth of the demand for coal. And to the extent
that the industrial demand for coal tends to fall because of coal
— 79 —
substitutes and fuel economies, part or all of this reduction may
be offset by additions to the total of industrial output.
If the quantity of industrial output were not larger to-day
than it was 15 or 20 years ago, the tonnage of coal consumed industrially would be still less than it is. And it is only by means of
an increased industrial output in the future that the demand for
coal can be materially stimulated in the face of the tendencies
towards contraction which are discussed below.
Electricity Supply Industry
Of particular importance in maintaining the volume of industrial
demand for coal during the post-war years has been the expansion
of the electricity supply industry. Some idea of the speed with
which the industry has developed in particular countries is
suggested by the figures of table III.
TABLE I I I .
PRODUCTION OF THERMO-ELECTRIC ENERGY BY CENTRAL
SUPPLY STATIONS, SELECTED
COUNTRIES,
1925-1936
(In millions of kwh.)
Country
1925
1929
United States . 45.250(g) 62,723
1.340(A)
U.S.S.R. . . .
3,697
6,619
Great Britain .
10,401
Germany (a) :
8,010(6) 14,470
Without Saar.
(15,359)
With S a a r . . (8,574)
889
504
Saar(/) . . .
8,198
6,222
France (d) . . .
1,750
1,072(6)
Japan
1,604
1,004
Netherlands
1,218
785(c)
Czechoslovakia .
1,768
742 (c)
Belgium
. . .
Union of South
1,761
2,454
Africa. . . .
993 (c)
1,785
Poland . . . .
Total above
countries
74,302
1931
1933
61,126
7,584
11,533
50,674
12,508
13,915
12,475 12,525
(13,367) (13,375)
892
850
8,381
8,241
1,284
2,447
1,979
2,082
1,348
1,340
2,023
1,861
2,661
1,577
3,309
1,562
1935
1936
59,423
72,580
19.880(c) 24,130 (c)
20,867
17,971
17,050
7,654
3,690
2,207
1.374(c)
2.078(c)
3.772(e)
1.695(c)
110,957 112,863 111,314 136,794
19,350(6)
7,740(6)
4,130(6)
2,336
1,460 (c)
2,305 (c)
1,862 (c)
160,762(¿)
(a) Calculated by assuming that the distribution between thermo-electric and hydroelectric energy was the same for central station output as for the whole of output. (6) Calculated by assuming that thermo-electric output of central stations rose at same
rate as total output of central stations, (c) Calculated by assuming that central station
output of thermo-electric energy rose at same rate as total output of thermo-electric energy.
(d) Including output of thermo-electric energy by self-producers (industrial establishments)
whose plants, are connected to supply systems, (e) 1934. (/) Total output of thermoelectric energy, (g) 1926. (h) Calculated by assuming that output by all public utility
thermo-electric stations rose at same rate as that of regional stations excluding municipal
and agricultural, (i) Assuming that 1936 output by Union of South Africa was at
least equal to that of 1934.
Computed from Statistical Year-Book, 1928, 1936-37.
— 80 —
It is seen from table III that between 1925 and 1936 the output
of thermo-electric energy by central supply stations increased
about 18 times in the Soviet Union, almost quadrupled in Japan,
more than tripled in Great Britain and Belgium, doubled or more
in Germany, the Netherlands, Poland and South Africa, and rose
by 86 per cent, in Czechoslovakia, by 72 per cent, in the United
States, and by 24 per cent, in France. As was natural under the
circumstances, coal intake by central electric stations rose also,
but much more slowly (because of fuel economies) than did output.
Thus in the United States, while the index of thermo-electric
output by central stations rose from 100 in 1925 to 172 in 1936,
the intake of coal to produce this electricity rose only from 100
to 104 1; in Great Britain, where the authorised undertakings of
the electricity supply industry raised their output of thermoelectric current from an index of 100 in 1924-1925 to 254 in 19341935, their intake of coal and coke went up from, 100 to 154 and
of gas made from coal or coke from 100 to 143 2. As for Germany,
the rise in yield of electric energy from 100 in 1927 to 183 in 1936
may be compared with an increase in coal consumption by electricity supply undertakings from 100 to 134 over the same period 3.
Not all of the increase in the coal consumption of thermo-electric
plants did or could add to the industrial demand for coal. The period
under review was one of electrification of power, so that the rising
curve of thermo-electric output after 1925 expresses in large measure
a mere displacement of steam by electric power.' Instead of being
fired at industrial establishments for raising steam for direct use,
tons of coal were being fired (with improved fuel efficiency) at central
stations for generating electric power. However, much of the increase
in coal consumption by the electricity supply industry undoubtedly
went to meet the enlarged power requirements of an expanding
industrial system and to satisfy, above all, the growing demand
for household electricity.
New Uses of Coal
As for expanding the total consumption of coal by developing
new uses, this is entirely dependent, from any practical point of
1
For consumption of coal by public utilities in the United States, see
Minerals Year-Book, 1937, p. 799.
2
P. E. P. Report on the British Coal Industry, London, 1936, p. 111.
3
For consumption of coal by public utilities in Germany see Statistische
Uebersicht, 1936, p. 39. Figures for thermo-electric output by the Saar are
excluded from the 1927 index but included in that of 1936. To offset this,
consumption of coal bv thermo-electric plants of the Saar is also excluded for
1927 but included for"l936.
— 81 —
view, upon the possibilities of treating it as a raw material of
industrial chemistry for the yield of by-products other than coke
and gas. The limiting factors to the consumption of coal for
such purposes—whether by low-temperature carbonisation or
by hydrogénation plants—are economic rather than technological.
Given present-day costs and prices in industrial countries, and in
the absence of Government subsidies, it would not pay to consume
coal merely (as in hydrogénation) or mainly (as in low-temperature
carbonisation) to obtain fuel oils, motor spirit, tar, pitch, ammonia
sulphate, coal-tar dyes, etc. To produce these chemical commodities profitably, they must be derived as by-products of, or as
joint products with, coke or manufactured gas or both.
As a general rule, therefore, the output of the chemical byproducts of coal must be governed by the demand for the major
products—coke and manufactured gas. On the other hand, the
demand for coal is capable, under special circumstances, of being
stimulated by the demand for the various commodities, other
than coke and manufactured gas, into which it can be decomposed,
distilled and refined. Thanks to governmental policies of encouraging the development of the oil-from-coal industry in the interest
of national defence or self-sufficiency, the production of oil from
coal is already coming to be a commercial reality in such countries
as Germany and Great Britain particularly, as well as in Japan,
Australia, New Zealand and others. The quantities of coal consumed
by carbonisation or hydrogénation plants to obtain oil primarily
thus constitute a net addition to the total consumption of coal.
In the manufacture of coke and gas, it is furthermore clear that
the costs of production are lowered somewhat by virtue of the
accompanying yield of chemical by-products. Such lowering
of costs offers an opportunity for increasing the demand for coal
by lowering prices. It is uncertain, however, how far the fall in
costs of production is actually translated into lower prices ; the degree
to which the different uses of coal respond to the stimulus of lower sales
prices is also unclear 1. In general, the possibilities of expanding the
demand for coal by developing the oil-from-coal industry would seem
to be limited, at least as regards the immediate future.
New Techniques of Coal Consumption
Finally, the development of new techniques of utilising coal
may be briefly considered. It would appear that the demand
1
For elasticity of the demand for coal, see pp. 100-103.
CR. I.
6
— 82 —
for coal has been somewhat stimulated during recent years by the
introduction of pulverised fuel in conjunction with automatic
stokers, particularly by railway locomotives. Experiments are
also in progress to stimulate the consumption of coal further
by introducing colloidal mixtures of pulverised coal and oil for
bunker fuel in steamship transport. Although of positive influence
upon the demand for coal—by stemming the tide in favour of
fuel oils particularly—neither of these developments has as yet
reached important dimensions.
B. — Factors of Contraction
Of much greater force than the factors of expansion in recent
years have been the forces tending to limit and contract the
demand for coal. These forces are considered here in the order
of what seems to be their increasing influence.
Depressed State of Railway
and Steamship
Transportation
Two of the most important of the industrial consumers of coal
—railway and steamship transport—have been " distressed "
industries throughout the post-war period as a whole. Burdened
in many countries with heavy fixed charges on account of bonded
indebtedness, railway transport has had to meet large-scale and
increasingly severe competition from the new industry of road
motor transport and from the increasing use of private motor
cars 1 . As for the merchant marine of the world, it has had
to contend with the contracted quantum of world trade at
least during recent years 2. Thus owing to the contraction of
demand for their services, the consumption of coal by both
railway and steamship transport has been tending to lower
levels 3.
It is not possible to calculate how much of the reduced purchases
of coal by the transportation industry in recent years is speci1
In a few special cases, for example the United States, railroads have also
had to meet the competition of pipe-lines transporting crude oil from the oil
wells to petroleum refineries.
2
Competition by pipe-lines is also operative, but of minor importance.
3
It should be kept in mind, however, that the decline of fuel consumption
need not run exactly parallel to that of the volume of traffic. So far as railways
are concerned, a large part of the traffic decline expresses itself in the increased
percentage of goods-wagon miles hauled empty and, with reference to the
merchant marine, in the higher percentage of return voyages in ballast.
— 83 —
fically attributable to its depressed status and how much to other
causes. But it is clear from available data that the total services
provided by railway and steamship transport in all countries
have been tending downward during the past decade at least. As
regards railway transport, as shown in table IV, the volume of
revenue freight carried fell strongly between 1928 and 1935 or
1936 in such countries as the United States, Canada, Italy,
Czechoslovakia and Belgium. Substantial declines were also
registered, during the same period, in Germany, India, Great
Britain and Poland. In those instances where marked expansion
took place—the Soviet Union, Japan, the Union of South Africa
and Australia—it was confined to countries which lie outside the
European-North American area where the world coal problem
is of greatest significance.
TABLE IV.
VOLUME OF RAILWAY TRAFFIC: REVENUE FREIGHT (a)
CARRIED, SELECTED COUNTRIES, 1926-1936
(In thousands of million ton-kilometres)
1926
1928
1932
1935
1936
414.1
636.7
343.5
United States .
653.3
504.5 (b)
93.4
68.9
169.3
258.1
323.5
U.S.S.R. . . .
Germany :
59.0
66.3
38.9
Without Saar
(59.6)
(66.9)
57.0
63.4
(39.3)
With Saar .
50.0
38.5
60.8
33.8
35.4
Canada . . . .
33.3
35.8
28.1
33.6
33.8
India
21.6 (c)
27.1
25.2
22.9
Great Britain .
15.0
20.2
13.5
15.7
16.4
Poland . . . .
12.3
13.3
11.0
14.6
12.5
Japan
. . . .
11.0
7.9
9.6
Italy
7.4
8.2
7.0(d)
5.5
Union of South
9.3
10.9
6.4
7.1
Africa . . .
4.9
5.1
5.9
5.5
Czechoslovakia .
8.3
7.8
4.8
4.5
5.3
Australia . . .
Belgium . . . .
(a) As far as possible, free traffic and service traffic are excluded from these figures;
but their fluctuations run closely parallel to those of revenue-paying trafile.
(6) Estimated by assuming revenue-freight carried by all railways increased at same
rate as that carried by Class 1 railways.
(c) Figure affected by coal stoppage of that year.
(d) Figure for 1927.
SOURCE: Statistical Year-Booh, 1933-34; 1936-37.
Even if the displacement of coal by oil for bunker use had not
been operative during the post-war years, and even in the absence
of advances in marine engineering, the consumption of coal by
merchant vessels would probably have declined appreciably. This
— 84 —
is strongly suggested by the fairly close parallelism shown in
table V between the fluctuations in the quantum of world trade
and in those of merchant shipping activity.
TABLE V.
NET TONNAGE OF SHIPS CLEARED IN 4 2
COMPARED WITH THE ACTIVE
GROSS TONNAGE
COUNTRIES
OF THE
WORLD'S
MERCHANT MARINE, AND WITH THE QUANTUM OF WORLD
TRADE
(Average volumes 1925-1929 = 100)
Net tonnage
of ships
cleared i
Year
Active tonnage
of world's
merchant
marine,
30 June
Quantum
of world
trade
95.5
106
105
91.5
92.5
98
100.5
91.5
110
102.5
82
86
90
94.5
89
111.5
111
94.5
98
105
107
1925
1929
1930
1932
1933
1935
1936
i Ships clearing in overseas traffic; where available, total tonnage of vessels with cargo
or in ballast; otherwise with cargo only.
SOURCE; LEAGUE OF NATIONS: World Production and Prices, 1936-37, p. 74.
Displacement of Coal by Other Fuels and Water Power
Statistics relating to the trends in energy supply between 1913
and 1935 were examined earlier 1 . To summarise briefly, the
following changes took place in the world production of the most
important forms of energy supply during the period under review:
INCREASE OR DECREASE OF OUTPUT OF ENERGY SUPPLY OVER 1 9 1 3
VOLUME
(In million metric tons of coal equivalent)
Year
Coal
Lignite
Coal
and
lignite
Oil
Natural
gas
Firewood
Water
power
All
energysupply
1925 . .
1929 . .
1935 . .
— 31
+ 109
— 104
+ 20
+ 36
+ 27
— 11
+ 145
— 77
+ 136
+ 218
+ 246
+ 22
+ 50
+ 51
— 50
— 50
— 50
+ 35
+ 63
+ 91
+ 132
+ 426
+ 261
1
See Chapter I I I , p p . 31-37.
— 85 —
In brief, the output of coal and lignite made little headway
towards higher levels during the post-war years, while that of
oil, natural gas and water power forged ahead rapidly and steadily.
That some displacement of coal by other fuels and by water power
was taking place during the years after 1919-1920 would thus be
hard to deny. The extent of this displacement, however, cannot
be measured accurately on the basis of available statistical data.
All that can be done is to consider the various ways in which,
directly or indirectly, coal may have been potentially 1 or actually 2
displaced by equivalent quantities of oil, natural gas or water
power.
Petroleum. — Only a small part of the increase in the output
of petroleum between 1913 and 1935 actually entered into or was
potentially capable of entering into effective competition with coal.
In the first place, a considerable part of the increased output of
oil went to satisfy the enormously enlarged energy requirements
of the oil industry itself. Oil wells, pipe-lines, and above all
petroleum refineries, were becoming ever larger consumers of oil as
petroleum output rose.
Second, another large part of the increased output of oil went
to serve the purposes of lubrication 3. Third, the largest single
share of the enlarged output of oil went to satisfy the growing
requirements of the automobile in all its forms (motor-cycles,
motor-cars, autobuses, tractors, lorries), supplemented more
recently by those of aircraft, particularly the aeroplane 4.
Genuine displacement of coal by oil has taken place mainly
through the growing use of oil-firing or oil-burning equipment
in steamship transportation particularly, and to a much smaller
degree in railway transportation. The facts of displacement are
here clear and unambiguous. Coal was in the past almost the
exclusive fuel consumed by steamship and railway undertakings;
to-day it shares this function with oil. Every increase in the consumption of oil by merchant vessels or by locomotives represents
1
Potential in that coal output was prevented from rising by the amount
by which the output of other forms of energy supply rose.
2
Actual in that, coal output was forced to decline by the amount by which
the output of other forms of energy supply rose.
8
It is theoretically conceivable that coal should be used for the extraction
of lubricating oils. In practice, however, this has not yet been accomplished
on a commercial scale. If it should be accomplished, the displacement involved
would be that of petroleum by coal, not the other way round.
4
This may have involved some indirect displacement of coal due to competition of motor-cars, autobuses and lorries with railways and steamships as
suggested on p. 82.
— 86 —
either an actual fall in the pre-existing demand for coal or else a
failure of demand to advance in a field of consumption which coal
in the past had to itself. Depending on price fluctuations in time
as well as on price variations between ports, many steamships
are to-day equipped to raise steam by the firing either of coal
or of oil; some railway enterprises, furthermore, possess both
oil-burning and coal-burning equipment, which may be called
upon to render greater or lesser service as dictated by movements
of relative prices and costs 1. No better examples of direct competition or of immediate substitutability could be found.
Data indicating the magnitude of the movement from coal to
oil in the engineering practice of the merchant marine are given
in table VI.
TABLE VI.
TYPES OF ENGINES AND MOTIVE POWER IN USE BY
THE WORLD'S MERCHANT MARINE, 1 9 1 3 - 1 9 1 4 TO 1 9 3 6 - 1 9 3 7
Year ending
30 June
Coal-fired vessels
(steam-raising)
Oil-fired vessels
(steam-raising)
Oil-burning
vessels
(Diesel motors)
Total steam and
motor vessels
Tonnage Percent Tonnage Percent Tonnage Percent. Tonnage Percent
A.
1914
1929
1930
1932
1934
1935
1936
1937
B.
1919
1920
1926
1929
1932
1935
1936
1937
Existing
Vessels of 100 tons and upwards recorded in Lloyd's
in million gross Ions and per cent, of world tonnage
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
43.9
40.4
40.1
38.2
33.9
32.5
31.9
31.7
96.6
60.8
58.9
55.9
52.7
51.0
49.9
48.6
1.3
19.4
19.9
20.1
19.9
19.9
19.8
19.9
2.9
29.2
29.2
29.4
30.9
31.2
30.9
30.4
0.2
6.6
8.1
10.0
10.6
11.3
12.3
13.7
0.5
10.0
11.9
14.7
16.4
17.8
19.2
21.0
45.4
66.4
68.0
68.3
66.4
63.7
64.0
65.3
New Tonnage Constructed under Rules of Lloyd's Register, in
gross tons and per cent, of world tonnage
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2,491
2,111
419
600
57
150
199
262
66.2
50.4
31.6
34.5
6.2
20.0
19.9
19.6
1,194
1,996
304
351
260
50
221
161
31.8
47.7
22.9
20.2
28.4
6.6
22.1
12.0
76
80
602
786
598
552
580
913
2.0
1.9
45.5
45.3
65.4
73.4
58.0
68.4
Register,
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
thousand
3,761
4,187
1,325
1,738
915
752
1,002
1,336
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
SOURCE: Annual Reports of Lloyd's Register of Shipping.
1
A n u m b e r of thermo-electric and steam-power p l a n t s are also fitted with
dual-purpose e q u i p m e n t .
— 87 —
Since 1914, it is seen, marine engineering has tended strongly
away from the coal-fired vessel in favour of ships either oil-fired
or operated by Diesel motors burning oil. Coal-fired vessels fell
in tonnage between 1914 and 1937 from 44 million or 97 per cent.
of the world total to 32 million or 49 per cent. Oil-fired vessels,
during the same interval, expanded in tonnage more than fifteen
times over, from a little over 1 million tons or 3 per cent, of the
world total to a little under 20 million tons or between 30 and 31
per cent. Still more spectacularly, the tonnage of motor ships
multiplied almost 69 times, from 0.2 million tons or 0.5 per cent.
of the world total to 13.7 million or 21 per cent. In fact, the data of
table VI somewhat under-estimate the true extent of the movement ;
being confined to cargo and passenger boats, they take no account
of the almost complete displacement of coal by oil which has
taken place in the navies of almost all naval Powers. Nor is the
change from coal to oil by the merchant marine anywhere near
its end. On the contrary, the trends of new construction since 1920
have continued in favour of vessels using oil as fuel, particularly
motor ships.
In the case of merchant vessels, the change from coal to oil
has been motivated primarily by economic factors 1, in part, by
the relative costs, per pound of steam raised or thermal unit
generated, of coal as compared with oil. Thus the great drift away
from coal to oil began after 1919-1920, in response to the famine
prices at which coal was selling during the shortages of the immediate
post-war years. Another economic factor of this change—and the
more important in the long run—goes back to the superior stowing
qualities of oil because of its greater thermal compactness and
its fluidity. Merchant vessels using oil for bunkering purposes
thus have to devote relatively less space to carrying their fuel
supplies and can devote relatively more space to the carrying of
revenue freight or passengers.
Recent movements in the consumption of coal and oil by merchant
vessels plying in the foreign trade of three important countries
are shown by table VII; these figures reflect, however, other
influences such as cyclical fluctuations, fuel economies, obstacles
to world trade, etc., as well as the shift from coal to oil.
1
But in the similar and even stronger shift by the navies of the world,
military motives have predominated ; e.g. the greater cruising range of oil-fired
battleships, their ability to carry heavier armaments because of space saved
by the more compact stowing of oil, etc.
— 88 —
TABLE VII.
COAL AND OIL USED AS BUNKER FUEL BY VESSELS
ENGAGED IN THE FOREIGN TRADE OF GREAT BRITAIN, UNITED STATES,
THE
NETHERLANDS
(In million long tons)
Great Britain United States Netherlands
Together
Year
Coal
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
(a)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
16.8
16.7
16.4
15.6
14.6
14.2
13.5
13.5
12.5
Combined
Index
1927 = 100
Oil (a) Coal Oil (a) Coal Oil (a) Coal Oil (a) Coal Oil (a)
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.7
1.0
1.4
1.1
4.1
3.8
3.8
3.1
2.0
1.2
1.2
1.8
1.4
7.0
7.2
7.3
7.1
6.1
5.3
4.5
4.2
4.2
3.4
3.3
3.0
2.8
2.5
1.5
1.7
2.3
2.3
0.11
0.10
0.11
0.10
0.08
0.09
0.13
0.21
0.25
24.3
23.8
23.2
21.5
19.0
16.9
16.3
17.0
16.2
8.1
8.2
8.4
8.2
6.9
6.1
5.6
5.8
5.6
100
98
96
89
78
70
67
70
66
100
101
103
101
85
76
69
71
69
Oil converted into coal at 250 imperial gallons = 1 long ton.
SOURCE: MINERS' INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION: Reports to the 32nd Annual Congress
(Prague, 1936), p. 39.
International statistics on the displacement of coal by oil in
railway transport are not readily available. It is generally known,
however, that the movement is of restricted importance and of
local occurrence in the main. The railway systems chiefly involved
would be those of the South-Western regions of the United States,
Rumania, Argentina, the Netherlands East Indies, and of certain
other districts and countries where petroleum reserves are more
easily available to railway carriers than reserves of coal.
The displacement of coal by oil is not confined, however, to
steamship and railway transport. A large and growing use of
fuel oil in the United States and Great Britain, for example, is as
furnace fuel for the heating of private homes, apartment houses,
restaurants, hotels, hospitals, public buildings, etc. 1 Fuel oil has
1
In the United States, for example, the output of fuel oils for the heating
of domestic and commercial buildings rose between 1933 and 1936 from
50 million to 93 million barrels, while that of range oil (a light distillate used
for house heating, hot-water heating and cooking) increased from 10 million
to 26 million barrels (Minerals Year-Book, 1937, p. 920).
In Great Britain, " Oil has made certain inroads in the home market (much
of which has since been regained by coal), particularly with large commercial
users such as restaurants, hotels and hospitals, where fuel storage space and
accessibility may be limited and the desirability of cleanliness substantial,
or where easv and accurate heat control may be necessary " (P.E.P. Report,
p. 116).
— 89 —
also replaced coal, b u t on a small scale, for the generation of
industrial power. Aside from serving the energy requirements of
industrial plants situated near oil fields and petroleum refineries,
oil has also tended to replace coal in several industrial uses
(e.g. t h e firing of glass and pottery furnaces) where a premium is
set on accurate temperature control, cleanliness and economical
storage of fuel, as well as in the generation of thermo-electric
power where the plants (e.g. those of the Middle Atlantic seaboard
in the United States) have ready access to both coal and oil
supplies.
The range over which coal has been displaced by oil varies
considerably among countries. The maximum displacement has
taken place in such countries as the United States, Rumania, t h e
Netherlands East Indies, etc., where large reserves of petroleum,
easily available, lie to hand ; the minimum amount of displacement
has taken place in countries such as Great Britain, Germany,
France, etc., rich in coal resources but devoid of domestic reserves
of petroleum.
Natural Gas. — The competition of natural gas with coal and
the resulting displacements are distinctly limited in size and scope.
Quantitatively, natural gas is of minor importance 1 , while geographically it occurs only in a few countries and districts 2 .
The bulk of the natural gas consumption takes forms, moreover,
which are not effectively competitive with coal. In the United
States, above all, about half of t h e consumption of natural gas
is for purposes that could not be competitive with coal. In 1935,
for example, over 30 per cent, of the natural gas was consumed
in gas field use, almost 13 per cent, in manufacturing carbon
black, and over 4 per cent, in supplying energy to petroleum
refineries 3. Of the remaining quantities of natural gas consumed
—by other industrial consumers, by domestic and commercial
consumers, by electric public utility plants and by Portland
cement works—only a part can compete effectively with coal, so
far as the United States is concerned. A considerable share of
1
2
See Chapter III, pp. 31-37.
According to the international statistics published by the Secretariat of
the League of Nations, more than nine-tenths of the world's natural gas is
consumed in the United States. The only other countries among those where
statistics are available which consume appreciable quantities are Rumania,
the Soviet Union, Netherlands East Indies, Canada, Argentina, Poland,
Mexico and Venezuela (Statistical Year-Book, 1936-37, p. 126).
3
Minerals Year Book, 1937, p. 1079. For detailed discussion see the
NATIONAL
INDUSTRIAL
CONFERENCE
BOARD:
The
Coal in the United States, New York, 1931, p. 31.
Competitive Position of
— 90 —
this consumption is localised in the States of Texas, Oklahoma
and California, where it involves the displacement much more of
fuel oil or water power than of coal.
To what extent natural gas will continue to compete with coal
is open to question. In the United States, the technique of transporting this fuel from the gas fields to the important consuming
centres by means of long-distance pipe-lines running hundreds of
miles has been highly developed in the recent past and may
be developed further in the immediate future. On the other hand,
the very slow rate at which output of natural gas is expanding
in the United States and other countries 1 suggests the possibility t h a t the industry may be approaching the limits of commercial
capacity to produce, in which case it is not improbable that coal
may soon be called upon to meet some of the energy requirements now satisfied by natural gas.
Hydro-electric Energy. — Statistics of the development of the
world's output of water power industry since 1913 have already
been examined 2 ; they may be usefully supplemented here by the
data of table VIII which relate to hydro-electric works in some
of the most important industrial countries.
Two points need to be stressed particularly in considering how
far water power is or can be competitive with coal. First, the
total possible displacement of coal by water power is very much
less extensive than is ordinarily supposed. Second, what displacements have taken place are much more " potential " than " actual "
—that is, have acted more to prevent coal demand from expanding
than to cause it to contract.
As regards the limited dimensions of total possible displacement,
the statistics are conclusive. Even if all of the increase of the
output of water power between 1913 and 1935 were regarded as
effectively cutting down the pre-existing demand for coal by an
equivalent amount, the total tonnage thus displaced could not
exceed the sum of 91 million metric tons, or roughly 7 per cent.
of the production of coal and lignite in 1913 and 8 per cent, of
their production in 1935 3. In certain cases, this assumption that
every increment to the output of hydro-electric energy has brought
1
See p. 84.
See Chapter III, pp. 31-37.
These figures assume a constant fuel efficiency, for thermo-electric works,
of 1 kg. of coal = 1 kwh. But the fuel efficiency of thermo-electric works
improved considerably between 1913 and 1935; thus the amount of total
possible displacement as calculated at the average levels of efficiency actually
prevailing would be very much lower than the figure indicated.
2
3
— 91 —
about a corresponding fall in the consumption of coal and lignite
may hold. Such is the case of railway electrification in Switzerland,
Italy, Japan and Sweden. On the whole, however, it would
seem that displacement has mainly taken the form of satisfying
the bulk of the new additions to total energy requirements, as economic growth goes on, by means of water power instead of by coal.
This is clearly shown by the increase in total coal consumption
between 1913 and 1936 and/or between 1929 and 1936 by Italy,
Japan, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland taken as a group 1.
These figures indicate t h a t potential displacement of coal by
water power can be consistent not only with maintained levels of
coal consumption, but also with larger tonnages actually consumed.
TABLE VIII.
OUTPUT OF HYDRO-ELECTRIC
ENERGY,
SELECTED
COUNTRIES, 1925-1936
(In thousands of million kwh.)
Country
United States (a) .
Canada (a) . . .
J a p a n (a) . .
I t a l y (b) . . .
N o r w a y (b)
F r a n c e (c) . .
Sweden (b). .
Switzerland (b)
G e r m a n y (b) .
Austria (6) . .
Finland (¿>) .
New Zealand (¿>)
Great Britain (b)
1925
9.9
6.2
4.0
3.7
3.7
2.9
0.3
0.02
1929
1931
1933
1935
1936
34.6
17.7
11.6
9.4
7.6(d)
6.1
5.0
5.3
3.6
1.8
0.9(d)
0.7
0.14
30.6
16.0
13.1
9.7
7.7
5.9
5.1
5.1
4.3
1.8
0.9
0.8
0.41
34.7
17.0
15.7
10.8
7.3
6.7
5.3
4.9
4.1
2.0
1.2
0.9
0.33
40.0
22.8
18.7
11.6 (c)
7.8
8.2
6.9
5.7
5.8
2.1
1.5
1.0
0.62
40.9
24 9
75
6 1
(a) These figures relate only to the output of hydro-electric works supplying energy
to third parties; the output of " auto-producers "—establishments generating energy for
their own use—is excluded.
(6) Output, of hydro-electric works supplying to third parties and of auto-producers;
includes limited amounts of thermo-electric energy in some cases.
(c) 1934.
(d) 1930.
(e) Output of works supplying to third parties plus that of auto-producers whose
plants are connected to supply systems.
SOUHCE: Statistical Year-Book, 1936-37; 1933-34.
It should also be kept in mind that the development of the
hydro-electric industry, in so far as it stimulates industrial growth,
creates a demand for heat and power some of which would not
have arisen otherwise. Clearly, this part of the increase of demand
1
See Chapter IV, p p . 69-73.
— 92 —
involves no displacement whatever of coal; it may, in fact, enlarge
the consumption of that fuel. At the same time, a large part
of the world's installed capacity to generate water power is interconnected for central delivery purposes with thermo-electric
plants. Where these interconnected networks exist, the two forms
of energy—water power and coal—are complementary rather than
competitive; the service of each supplements that of the other
in terms of seasonal and district peaks of demand and thus helps
to achieve the optimum load-factors upon which the cheap generation of electric energy is primarily dependent.
From all angles, therefore, much the same conclusions are reached:
even the potential displacement of coal by water power during
the post-war years falls considerably below the full addition to
the output of hydro-electric energy; the actual displacement, if
any, is still smaller.' The prospects of the immediate future
are that the hydraulic and thermal methods of generating
electricity will continue to develop in large measure as they
have tended to develop in the past, on the basis, that is, of
reciprocal complementarity in the main.
Displacement of Pig Iron by Re-melted Scrap. — How demand
for coal by iron and steel works has been curtailed through the
advance of fuel economies in the strict sense will be considered
below. The present section is concerned only with the lessened
consumption of coal in its most important function as a raw
material—the smelting of iron ore—which has resulted from the
replacement of pig iron by scrap for melting in the manufacture
of steel ingots and castings.
Before the World War, almost the entire output of steel ingots
and castings was manufactured from pig iron, the latter being
obtained from the blast furnace mixing of iron ore, metallurgical
coke and fluxing materials. Ever since 1920, however, the ratio
of the output of pig iron and ferro-alloys to that of steel ingots
and castings has been declining steadily. For the world as a whole
at present, about three-fourths of the tonnage of ingots and
castings is obtained from the working up of pig iron ; the rest
is obtained . from the re-melting of scrap. Details are given in
table IX.
So far as coal consumption is concerned, the decline of output
of pig iron relative to that of steel means that the coal requirements
of the iron and steel industry necessarily fail to keep pace with
the growth of steel production. The total coal requirements of
— 93 —
TABLE IX. — WORLD PRODUCTION OF PIG IRON AND FERRO-ALLOYS
COMPARED WITH THAT OF STEEL INGOTS AND CASTINGS, 1 9 0 9 TO 1 9 3 6
(Millions of metric tons)
(1)
Year
1909-1913 average
1913
1920
1925 . . . . . . .
1929
1932
1935
1936
1937 *
Pig iron
Steel
and ferro- ingots and
alloys
castings
68.31
78.82
62.88
76.88
98.59
39.57
74.17
91.50
103.70
(3)
(2)
65.22
76.62
71.73
90.71
120.71
50.69
99.30
124.30
132.60
4)
Difference
between
2 and 1
—
—
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
3.09
2.20
8.85
13.83
22.12
11.12
25.13
32.80
28.90
Percent. Per cent.
that 1
that 3
is of 2
is of 2
(a)
105
(ai
103
88
(b)
(¿>i
85
(6'.
82
(¿>'
78
(b]>
75
(6
74
(6
78
—
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
5(a)
3(a)
12 (b)
15 (b)
18 (b)
22 (b)
25 (6)
26 (6)
22 (b)
* Provisional estimates.
(a) These neaative differences or percentages largely represent the output of cast iron.
wrought iron, foundry iron, etc.
(6) These positive differences or percentages largely represent the use of re-melted
scrap.
SOURCES: Statistical Year-Booh, 1936-37; 1933-34; 1928; 1926; iron and Coal Trades Review,
31 December 1937.
the iron and steel industry are the sum of two separate factors:
first, blast furnaces consume coke in the process of smelting iron
ore; second, steel works and rolling mills consume coal metallurgically and for power \ Each ton of steel obtained from the melting
of scrap thus requires a materially smaller consumption of coal
than each ton of steel obtained from the working up of pig iron.
If, therefore, tons of steel obtained from the melting of scrap
make inroads into the markets of tons of steel obtained from the
working up of pig iron, total consumption of coal as well as
consumption per ton of output will tend downwards.
It cannot be determined with precision how far the re-melting
of scrap has merely taken up the net increase of the world's
demand for steel ingots and castings, and how far, by cutting
into the pre-existing markets for pig iron, it has actually reduced
the production of the latter to lower levels. Between 1920 and
1
In modern steel works practice most of the power requirements as distinct
from the metallurgical are m e t by utilising the surplus gases released when
coke is manufactured in by-product ovens and then consumed in t h e blast
furnace. Metallurgically, coal or gas from coal is used to facilitate t h e chemical
processes by which iron is transformed into steel, except of course where
p n e u m a t i c (air-blowing) methods of conversion are utilised.
— 94 —
1929, the figures of table IX suggest, the displacement of pig
iron by scrap must have been largely potential in character, for
although the increase of pig iron output lagged behind the increase
of steel output, the total tonnage of pig iron did expand from 63
to 99 million metric tons. Between 1929 and 1937, in contrast,
a good deal of actual displacement of pig iron by re-melted scrap
must have taken place. While production of steel ingots and
castings rose from 121 to 133 million tons, that of pig iron and
ferro-alloys rose only from 99 to 103 million. As compared with
1913, however, the 1937 volume of output was considerably
larger both for blast furnaces and for steel mills; production of pig
iron was about one-third greater, that of raw steel nearly double.
On net balance and over a quarter of a century, the continuing
shift by steel works from pig iron to scrap metal has not yet
succeeded in reducing the total demand for blast furnace products,
and to this extent at least has not acted to contract the metallurgical
consumption of coal.
Whether or not the practical limits of the substitution of melting
scrap for pig iron have been reached is an open question. The
answer to it largely depends on what assumptions are made,
first, as to the future development of new industries, for example
automobile manufacturing, which have contributed heavily to the
annual volumes of scrap metal in recent years, and second, as
to the rates at which railways will be replacing their present
plant and equipment" in the near future. What does seem
highly probable is that there will be no return in the discernible
future to the pre-war state of affairs when competition of melting
scrap with pig iron was negligible. If, for any reason, this supposition should prove to be unfounded and the technology of
steel-making should revert to its former almost exclusive dependence on pig iron, the resulting expansion of the demand for coal
would be considerable.
The Effects of Fuel Economies
The most important factor which has tended to contract the
volume of demand for coal has been the development of fuel
economies by a number of industries, especially iron and steel
works, railway and steamship transport, coke and gasworks, and
manufacturing plants raising steam or generating electric power
for their own use. The whole history of the iron and steel industry
particularly has been one long series of steps towards ever greater
— 95 —
economies in the use of coal and coke as fuels 1. The whole
history of the steam engine, likewise, has been one of continuous
progress toward better fuel performance by locomotives, steamships,
electricity supply works, power plants, etc.2
Some idea of the importance of the recent movement towards
economies in the use of coal, particularly since the World War,
is suggested by the following statistical data for the United States,
Great Britain and Japan.
United States. — Between 1902 and 1929, thermo-electric public
utilities multiplied their output.of energy sixteenfold but only
quadrupled their intake of coal. From 1914 to 1929, steam railroads tended to operate a larger number of ton-kilometres with
ever smaller tonnages of locomotive fuel. From 1904 to 1929,
blast furnaces, steel works and rolling mills were steadily obtaining
a larger sum of output with a lesser consumption of coal and coke.
Between 1917 and 1927, the manufacturing industries increased
the quantum of production by one-fourth but decreased the
consumption of energy (mainly coal) by one-third 3. In short,
the average fuel efficiency of industrial manufacturing and
railway transportation had risen, between 1909 and 1929,
1
It would be out of place in this Report to survey the dramatic developments by which the iron and steel industry has reached its present state of
fuel efficiency. It is possible merely to allude to the main developments such
as the adoption of Neilson's invention of pre-heating the blast as the fundamental process of modern blast furnace technology between 1829 and 1833; the
beginning of utilisation of blast furnace gases between 1837 and 1865 as a
result of the researches of Dufour, Bunsen and Playfair; the building of larger
and larger furnaces after the middle of the nineteenth century; the integration
of coke ovens with blast furnaces, steel works and rolling mills; the epochmaking discovery of pneumatic steel-making by Bessemer in 1856 which laid
the foundations of the modern steel industry ; the invention of the open hearth
steel furnace by the Siemens brothers in the 1860's, etc. An interesting account
of the whole movement in its bearings on fuel economy is given by W. A. BONE
and G. W. HIM us in their book Coal: Its Constitution and Uses, London, 1936,
Chapters 26-28 inclusive.
2
The main phases of this progress include: the development of the reciprocating steam engine, beginning with Watt's great invention of the late
eighteenth century; the introduction of compound expansion by Hornblower,
Woolf and McNaught and of high-pressure expansion by Tretherick during
the first half of the nineteenth century; the higher boiler pressures and firing
temperatures together with stage-wise expansion resulting from the thermodynamic researches of Carnot, Joule, Clausius, Rankin and Thomson from
1824 to 1859; Parsons' historic invention of the steam turbine for land and
marine uses in the 1890's; and since then such improvements as the superheating of steam, the better recovery of waste heat, advances in automatic
stoking with pulverised fuel, better models of both reciprocating engines
and turbines, etc. See op. cit., Chapter 29.
3
F. G. THYON and H. O. ROGERS: Statistical Studies of the Progress in
Fuel Efficiency, Second World Power Congress, 1930, pp. 343-364.
— 96 —
by approximately 33 per cent, as shown below for individual
groups 1:
Consumption
group
Electric public
utility plants
Steam railroads
Measure of fuel
efficiency
Lbs. of fuel per kwh.
Lbs. of fuel per transportation
unit
Petroleum refining
Energy consumed—excluding
by-product refinery gas—per
barrel of crude
Iron furnaces, steel Coal, oil and purchased power
works, rolling mills
(excluding natural gas) per
ton of product
Cement mills
Fuel and purchased power per
barrel of product
All other manufacturing
All industries and
railroads combined
Percentage
decrease
in unit fuel
consumption
1909-1929
66
40
36
25
21
21 (?)
About 33
Although at slower rates, fuel efficiency continued to rise
measurably between 1929 and 1935 in all of the branches of industry
for which annual data are available 2 . Where public utilities
(thermo-electric) required 1.68 lbs. of coal for a kwh. in 1929,
they required only 1.46 lbs. in 1935, an improvement of 13.6 per
cent. Steam railroad locomotives in the freight service brought
down their consumption of coal per 1,000 long-ton miles from
125 to 120 lbs., an improvement of 4.0 per cent.3 To produce a
long ton of pig iron (or ferro-alloy) blast furnaces took 2,984 lbs.
of coal in 1929 and only 2,838 lbs. in 1935, an improvement of
4.9 per cent. There was also some continuation, but only on a
small scale from 1929 to 1935, of the shift from beehive coke
ovens to by-product units; it may be estimated that in coke
manufacturing from 1913 to 1935 this shift was responsible for a
saving of 20.0 per cent, in thermal values through the recovery
of surplus gas, tar, light oils and breeze.
Great Britain. — It is possible to calculate the great fuel
economies that have been achieved, particularly since the World
War, in at least four major branches of industrial production: by
1
2
Ibid.
The figures which follow are taken from the Minerals Year-Book, 1936,
1937.
3
In the passenger service, which is of relatively minor importance, efficiency
fell from 14.7 to 15.7 lbs. of coal per passenger train car-mile; but this-reflects
the decline in passenger traffic which necessitated the running of fewer
passenger cars per train.
— 97 —
authorised electricity undertakings, by authorised gas undertakings,
by blast furnaces (iron and steel) and by railway transportation.
In rising from a total coal and coke consumption of 6.35 million
tons in 1920-1921 to 10.3 million in 1934-1935, the electricity
supply industry simultaneously lowered its fuel requirements
from 1.49 long tons per million kwh. in the earlier year to
0.67 tons in the later year, an improvement of 55 per cent. The
total saving of fuel was thus equal to 12.5 million long tons,
a sum larger by 21.3 per cent, than the tonnage actually consumed
by authorised electricity undertakings in 1934-1935 and three
times as great as the total increase in the consumption of coal
and coke by the industry as a whole 1. This is illustrated by the
following figures for the fuel requirements of thermal-electric
stations :
Coke and coal consumed,
long tons per million kwh.
1920-1921
1926-1927
1928-1929
1930-1931
1933-1934
1934-1935
1.49
1.00
0.88
0.79
0.71
0.67
SOURCE: P.E.P. Report on the British Coal Industry, 1936, p. 111.
Although the consumption of gas has been rising steadily since
pre-war years, and at a fairly rapid rate, the tonnage of coal carbonised by the gas supply industry has changed but little 2. The measure of efficiency (output of gas per metric ton of coal carbonised)
was thus improved from 275 cubic metres in 1884-1885 to 339
cubic metres in 1920 and to 417 cubic metres in 1934, an improvement of 52 per cent, in half a century and of 33 per cent, since
the end of the war 3. The total saving of coal at the 1934 level
of output may be calculated as 8.8 million tons (1884-1885 effi1
The unusual speed of this improvement in fuel economy is probably due
in largest measure to the setting up, which began in 1927, of the national
" grid "—that is, á national network of electricity supply which co-ordinates
and interconnects the generating facilities of all the individual plants. The
rapid growth of total output was also a strong stimulant to fuel economy
because of the accompanying favourable effects on load-factors.
2
The volume of gas supply by authorised undertakings rose between
1913-1914 and 1920-1921 at the rate of 2.2 per cent, yearly; since 1920-1921
the increase has been averaging 1.5 per cent, yearly. See F. BROWN: Significant Trends in the Development and Utilisation of Power Resources (Great
Britain), Third World Power Conference, 1936, p. 18. Consumption of coal
by gas undertakings was 16.7 million long tons in 1913; 16.9 million in 1920;
16.7 million in 1934; 16.7 million in 1935; and 17.8 million in 1936. See UNITED
KINGDOM MINES DEPARTMENT: Annual Reports of the Secretary for Mines.
3
F. BROWN: op. cit.
C R . I.
7
— 98 —
ciency) or 3.9 million tons (1920 efficiency)1. Between 1925 and
1934, again, authorised gas works raised their yield of gas, per
ton of carbonised coal, by 10 per cent., without materially lowering
the yield of coke 2 ; the record of improvement is as shown below.
AVERAGE
YIELD
OF AUTHORISED
TON O F COAL
GAS U N D E R T A K I N G S
P E R LONG
CARBONISED
Product
1925
1933
1934
Gas (thousand cubic feet) . .
Coke and breeze (cwts.) . . .
Tar (gallons)
Sulphate of ammonia (cwts.) .
13.6
13.4
11.4
0.148
14.9
13.3
12.6
0.079
15.0
13.3
12.6
0.083
S O U R C E : P.E.P.
Report, p . 108.
Where blast furnaces had to consume 2.06 tons of coke and
coal to smelt a ton of pig iron in 1913, the figures had been brought
down to 1.89 tons in 1930 and had fallen further to 1.66 tons by
1936 3. In the course of a quarter of a century, fuel efficiency
thus rose by almost 20 per cent, and during the last six years alone
by more than 12 per cent. To smelt the 1936 volume of pig iron
would have required an additional consumption of 3.1 million tons
of coal (1913 efficiency) or 1.8 million tons (1930 efficiency).
Official estimates for the period 1920-1934 show the following
trend of long tons of coke required per long ton of pig iron.
Type of iron
1920
1924
1929
1933
1934
Haematite . . .
Basic
Foundry forge . .
Ferro-alloys . . .
1.27
1.43
1.55
2.12
1.11
1.40
1.42
2.05
1.03
1.34
1.32
1.64
1.02
1.26
1.26
1.81
1.03
1.23
1.24
1.58
S O U R C E : G. J. K I N G , E . C. E V A N S and T . W E S T T H O R P :
Britain),
The
Processing
of Coal
(Great
Third World Conference (1936), p . 7.
1
These calculations do not take account of possible changes in the calorific
value
of gas sold by authorised undertakings.
2
Tar yield also rose by one-tenth. The heavy fall in the yield of sulphate
of ammonia is to be explained by economic factors ; because fertiliser prices
dropped heavily during the depression and because of competition from
synthetic producers, it did not pay gas works to work up their ammonia liquor.
3
These calculations are made from consumption of coal and coke by blast
furnaces as recorded in the Sixteenth Annual Report of the Secretary for Mines
(1937) and from output of pig iron and ferro-alloys as reported by Statistical
Year-Booh, 1936-37.
— 99 —
Even larger fuel economies would appear from calculations of
the weight of coal and coke required to manufacture a ton of raw
steel. No such calculations are here given because the results
are not to be interpreted as a movement towards fuel economy
in the strict sense; they reflect, predominantly, the displacement
of pig iron by scrap and of cold pig by molten iron in the charges
fed to open hearth furnaces \
The consumption of coal by steam railways has also moved
towards higher levels of efficiency. The measure of efficiency
improved more or less steadily between 1928 and 1934, from 2.28
to 2.18 tons of coal per 100 engine miles, an improvement of 4.4
per cent. The retarded consumption of locomotive coal in the
post-war years is thus largely the effect of fuel economies 2, although
other causes have also been responsible 3. The development has
been as follows:
Average coal consumption
Year
per hundred engine miles
(tons)
1928 . .
2.28
1929
2.29
1930
2.24
1931
2.23
1932
2.20
1933 (a)
2.17
1934 (a)
2.18
(a) Excluding London Passenger Transport Board.
SOURCE: P.E.P. Report, p. 114.
Japan. — In Japan also :
Fuel economy of coal has considerably advanced in recent years
according to the improvement of the quality of coal by means of
better preparation, the invention of more economical boilers, the
better control of temperature and combustion air in firing and the
progress of feeding method, as well as the wider use of pulverised
fuel. In 1914 the coal consumption at a steam power plant was
2.11 metric tons per 1,000 kilowatts, but it was reduced to only
0.7 metric tons in 1932, which represents a reduction to one-third.
Improvement of fuel economy is also remarkable in the railway
locomotives. In 1920, 70.81 kilograms of coal were consumed for
each 100 ton-kilometres in the traction of passenger and freight
cars, which in 1922 was reduced to 40.08 kilograms, showing a
saving of about 40 per cent. In the sphere of the steel industry
a similar saving can be observed. Formerly 3.5 metric tons of
1
Cf. however, MINERS' INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION: Reports to the Thirtysecond
International Congress (1936), p. 40; see also above, pp. 92-94.
2
Consumption of coal was 13.2 million long tons in 1913; 13.4 million
in 1929; 12.2 in 1934; 12.3 million in 1935; and 12.75 million in 1936
(UNITED KINGDOM MINES DEPARTMENT: Annual Reports of the Secretary for
Mines).
s
Above all, for Great Britain, the competition of road vehicles.
— 100 —
coal were consumed for the production of 1 metric ton of steel,
but in recent years the amount was reduced to less than 2 metric
tons. It is natural that the better fuel economy causes a temporary decline or a standstill in the demand for coal. On the other
hand, however, it creates new demands by stimulating a wider use.
• Thus the development has 1been favourable to the coal industry
of this country as a whole.
Summary
Examination of the statistics for three of the world's most
important industrial countries has shown an unbroken movement throughout the post-war years toward higher levels of fuel
efficiency in the consumption of coal; this movement continued
from 1929 to 1936. It would be a mistake to try to equate every
forward step in fuel economy with a backward step in the total
consumption of coal. The demand for coal has considerable
price-elasticity and coal does compete with other fuels and
water power. As far as this is true, progress by industrial
undertakings toward increased efficiency in the fuel uses of coal
must have stimulated total consumption a little and protected
coal markets somewhat against the inroads of oil, natural gas and
water power. On the other hand, the lowering of fuel requirements
per unit of output as shown by the data for the United States,
Great Britain and Japan, has been very large—even for so short
a period as 1929-1936. It is therefore to fuel economies above all
that the lagging of total consumption of coal behind the other
indices of industrial activity since 1913 must be attributed. It is
because of fuel economies in the main that the industrial system
of the world has become progressively capable of yielding an ever
larger quantum of goods and services with a total consumption
of coal almost unchanged.
III.
VARIABILITY OF THE DEMAND FOR GOAL
With a view more to bringing out the complexity of the factors
which affect the variability of coal consumption than to establishing exact findings, table X presents data from which it would
appear that:
(1) From 25 to 30 per cent, of the total coal demand tends
to vary little despite the rise and fall of economic activity ;
1
K. FURUTA: Tendency of Coal Demand and Supply and Control of Coal
Industry in Japan, Third World Power Conference (1936), p. 5.
— 101 —
(2) About half of the total coal demand responds moderately
and about half sluggishly to short-run price changes;
(3) Approximately three-fourths of the demand for coal is
capable of being affected materially by the advance of fuel
economies ;
(4) Roughly half of the demand for coal is subject to serious
displacement by other fuels and water power.
IV.
FACTORS AFFECTING THE SUPPLY OF COAL
No long-run over-capacity need result in an industry which faces
a falling or stagnating demand, if an adequate portion of the capital
invested is liquidated, if sufficient withdrawals from the total
labour force take place, if, in short, capacity.is kept in dynamic
balance with the trend of demand. Too often, however, readjustments of capacity to a declining demand are slow and painful,
being hampered by frictions such as the necessity of meeting
fixed charges, the unwillingness of workers to abandon their habitual
occupations, etc., and by various dynamic influences such as new
inventions, national commercial policies, etc. So it has been with
the coal-mining industry since 1919-1920. Although the coal
requirements of the world have advanced slowly, the power of
coal mines to give output has been kept up or even enlarged.
Among the various developments which make it reasonable to
suppose that the world's coal-mining capacity was considerably
enlarged after 1913, the following are of particular weight :
(1) New coal-mining facilities have been developed on a large
scale in certain countries and districts.
(2) A large advance has taken place in the exploitation of
lignite resources.
(3) Ways and means have been found for putting to effective
use many smaller sizes of coal, formerly treated as waste.
(4) The progressive mechanisation of mining practices has
brought about a strong rise of labour and machine productivity.
New Coal-Mining Facuities
Every addition to existing facilities for mining coal tends to be of a
lasting character. To open new capacity in coal mining is to make
heavy investments of fixed capital: overburden is stripped, or shafts
TABLE X.
FOR
COAL
BY
A SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF THE FACTORS AFFECTING THE
GROUPS
OF
COAL CONSUMERS
AND
SENSITIVITY
OF
DE
Degree of Sensitivity
Factors
In the short run :
Cyclical fluctuations
of economic activity
Very high
Percentages of
world
coal
consumption
Heavy metallurgical
Collieries . . .
19.6
4.3
Moderately high
General manufacturing (a) . . .
Railway transport
(b)
Steamship transport (b) . . . .
Percentages of
world
coal
consumption
Moderatel
Electric s
26.6
16.3
M
Gasworks
1.6
44.5
Price changes of coal,
other fuels and water
power
23.9
Changes in the length
and coldness of the
winter season . . .
Domestic heating
21.0
Steamship
port (d) .
Railway tr
(«)
Domestic h
(/)
Electric s
(g)
In the long run:
Progress toward fuel
economies in utilising coal
Trend towards use of
other fuels and water
power in place of coal
Heavy metallurgy
(A)
Electric stations.
Railway transport
Steamship transport
Steamship transport
19.6
7.1
16.3
1.6
General manufacturing
. . . .
Collieries (t) . .
Gas works
26.6
4.3
44.6
30.9
1.6
General manufacturing
. . . .
26.6
Railway transport 16.3
Gas works
Domestic h
Electric s
W
Growth of production
and of population .
1.6
42.9
All groups
(a) The sensitivity to business cycle fluctuations differs, of course, between industries manufactu
consumers' goods.
(b) To the extent that the cyclical fluctuations of industrial activity, by affecting the volume of
number of transport miles. Within certain limits, however, the number of transport miles will be cons
transported.
(c) To the extent that electric stations and gas works serve domestic consumers. Sensitivity to bus
less for gas works than for electric stations.
(d) In the sense that many vessels are fitted out with dual-purpose equipment which will burn co
(e) In the sense that many railways possess both coal-burning and oil-burning locomotives which
(/) Because of the possibilities of varying the length of the heating season, the number of heating
(a) Because many thermal electric stations are inter-connected for delivery purposes with hydro-el
out with dual-purpose equipment capable of burning coal or oil.
(h) Mainly by the construction of more efficient systems for capturing and putting to use waste hea
ovens, blast furnaces and steel mills, etc. : to a lesser extent by substituting by-product coke ovens for
(i) The cheapness of coal at the colliery probably weakens the impulse to explore all the technical
constitute part of vertical integrations of mines, coking plants, iron and steel works; others sell surplus
(j) In converting coal into coke and gas, most modern gas works are not far from almost full recove
here takes the form of recovering, for sale, an ever larger quantity of thermal values as chemical by-pro
(ft) To the extent mainly that electric current is capable of replacing gas in domestic use. But whe
coal consumption of gas works is offset in whole or in part by the increased consumption of thermo-ele
(i) Although there is genuine competition in some cases between hydro-electric and thermo-electri
part complementary. Modern delivery systems usually call for the inter-connection of output from both
output undeniably slows down the rate of growth of thermo-electric output.
(m) To the extent, which is very considerable, that blast furnaces particularly are dependent upon t
are as yet a minor factor.
SOURCE: Calculated from Chapter III, table IX.
— 104 —
are sunk, cross-cuts and entries run, hoisting and pumping equipment installed ; in either case, washeries and breakers may be built
and transport facilities set up at the mouth of the mine. Because
of the need of earning the fixed charges on these investments, the
new capacity fails to be liquidated when the influences which
called it into being cease to be operative. On the contrary, the
new mining facilities are put to use at all times as fully as the
volume of orders in hand will allow; they cease being put to use
only with the final abandonment of the mine. And abandonment
will not take place as long as coal is still available in commercial
quantity and can be marketed at prices which yield some surplus
above the direct costs of labour, explosives, pumping, repairs, etc.
During the World War, and for some time thereafter, most
countries were on strict rations of coal, owing to the military
requirements of the warring nations as well as to the destruction
wrought in the coal fields of Northern France and Belgium. The
prolonged shortage of the war period was followed by a series of
temporary but acute shortages due, above all, to the great coal
strikes of 1919-1922 in the United States and Great Britain, to the
occupation of the Ruhr in 1923, to the British coal dispute in 1926,
etc. 1 As a result, some of the neutral countries in Europe, e.g. the
Netherlands and Spain, Sweden and Switzerland, began to develop
rapidly their coal-mining or hydro-electric capacities. Among the
oversea countries, the high prices of coal during the war, in 1920,
in 1923 and in 1926 brought about large additions to the mining
facilities of the United States, India, Japan, China and the Union
of South Africa.
At the same time, some of the belligerent Powers of Europe also
expanded their coal-mining capacity soon after peace was made.
The Soviet Union carried out the development of coal mining on
a particularly large scale. Germany developed new mining facilities
to compensate for the loss of some of her mining districts to
Poland and France. The rehabilitation of the devastated mining
districts in the North of France provided that country with
considerably larger and technically better equipped mining
facilities than it had possessed before the war. Belgium opened
up the new North Basin or Campine Field.
Over the whole world, therefore, the post-war period was one
in which new coal districts were being brought into commercial
1
For the rise in coal prices during these years, see A. M. NEUMAN : Economic
Organisation of the British Coal Industry, 1934, p. 39; Statistische Uebersicht,
1936, p. 68; and Minerals Year-Book, 1936, p. 562.
— 105 —
production for the first time or favoured mining districts raised
to materially higher levels of potential output. Given the slow
rise in the demand for coal during the same period, the pressure
of increasing capacity began to make itself félt in the older districts
which were losing their former markets wholly or in part. Areas
of localised excess capacity were thus brought into being; for
example, South Wales, East Upper Silesia, Southern Illinois, etc.
These are the districts which, owing to the social and economic
strains arising from the impact of surplus capacity, have become
the " distressed areas " and " stranded communities " of the coalmining industry.
Development of Lignite Mining
The enormous development of facilities for producing lignite
since 1913 has added significantly to the productive powers of
the world's collieries1. It is in Germany, especially, that the lignite
industry experienced its most extensive development. Besides
Germany, the Balkan countries, such as Bulgaria, Rumania and
Yugoslavia have made large additions to their facilities for mining
lignite. In the Soviet Union, since 1932, the output of lignite
has increased sixfold as compared with the pre-war output.
Among the oversea countries, lignite capacity has been considerably
expanded in the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia
(the State of Victoria), and Nigeria.
The Utilisation of Small Sizes of Coal
Part of the increased capacity of coal mines may be attributed
to the recent introduction of ways and means of utilising many
smaller sizes of coal which formerly went to waste. The result
has been to increase the volume of effective supply derived from
the raising of any given tonnage of coal. In other words, the
economic output of the coal-mining industry at any given level of
physical production has been materially enlarged.
There is no way of measuring exactly the extent to which the
utilisation of small sizes of coal has added to the total capacity
of the industry. It is known, however, that many industrial
consumers—central electric stations, railway locomotives, steampower plants generally—have found that they can profitably
put tò use the smaller sizes of coal, which it was formerly regarded
1
See Energiequellen der Welt, p. 55.
— 106 —
as uneconomical to burn 1. This tendency has been particularly
forwarded by the development of briquetting techniques and by
the perfection of automatic stoking and other apparatus for firing
pulverised fuel.
Mechanisation of Mining and Higher Productivity
Higher output per unit of capital and labour as a result of
mechanisation is one of the major causes of the present unbalance
between coal supply and coal demand. Because of this, mechanisation of mining practices calls for special emphasis.
Much of the post-war movement towards mechanisation in coal
mining has taken the form of substituting mechanical coal-getting
appliances for under-cutting by hand. The strength of this movement in five important coal-mining countries is shown by table XI.
TABLE XI.
MECHANICAL
PERCENTAGE OF COAL OUTPUT WON BY MEANS OF
APPLIANCES (a),
Year
1913
1925
1927
1929
1932
1934
1935
1936
. . . .
SELECTED
Germany
(Ruhr)
Belgium
2
66 (c)
80
91
96
97
96
97
63
81
89
95
97
98.5
99.2
COUNTRIES,
United
France (PasStates (6)
de-Calais)
(bituminous)
51
71
72
75
79
79
79
44
65
81 (d)
85
88
1913-1935
Great
Britain
8.5
20
23
28
38
47
51
55
(a) In the United States and Great Britain, coal-cutting machines are the appliances
most extensively used: in Germany, Belgium and France, mechanical (pneumatic) picks.
(6) For purposes of comparison, because of increasing proportion of bituminous coal
Obtained from strip mines, the percentage of underground output mechanically undercut
was: 1913—51; 1923—68; 1929—78; 1932—84; 1934—84; 1935—84.
(c) Figure for 1926.
(d) Figure for 1931.
SOURCES: MINERS' INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION: Reports to the 32nd International Congress,
1936, p. 42; Statistische Uebersicht, 1936; FRANCE: Annales des Mines, 1937, p. 38.
Thus, in 1913, less than one-tenth of Great Britain's coal output
was obtained by coal-cutting machines; in 1936, over half of the
1
A n i m p o r t a n t consequence would seem to-be a narrowing of t h e p r e m i u m margin which it is usual to p a y for t h e l u m p sizes of s t e a m coal. In some of
t h e industrial consumption by thermo-electric plants and railways, t h e purchasers m a y positively prefer t h e smaller t o t h e larger sizes. I t is n o t impossible
t h a t some collieries m a y soon b e obliged t o install crushing machines in order
t o cope w i t h t h e growing volume of d e m a n d for small coals. See P.E.P.
Report, p p . 8, 10, 112.
— 107 —
output was thus undercut. Between 1929 and 1936 alone, the
proportion of coal undercut by mechanical appliances doubled,
rising from 28 to 55 per cent. In the Ruhr mines of Germany,
a bare 2 per cent, of the 1913 output was won by mechanical
apparatus, mainly pneumatic picks; at present, from 96 to 97
per cent, of the coal is obtained by such appliances. This trend to
mechanisation was brought to completion between 1926 and
1932, the proportion obtained mechanically rising from 66 per
cent, in the earlier to 96 per cent, in the later year. In the United
States, the proportion of bituminous coal undercut mechanically
has risen from a little over half of the output in 1913 to about
four-fifths at present; this trend continued after 1929\ The
French mines of the Pas-de-Calais which obtained only 44 per cent.
of their output by mechanical appliances in 1925 were winning
twice as much mechanically ten years later. From the level
of 63 per cent, of the output obtained mechanically in 1925, the
coal mines of Belgium have advanced to virtually complete
mechanisation at present.
Mechanisation of mining has not stopped with the replacement
of hand hewing by coal-cutting machines as in Great Britain and the
United States or by pneumatic picks as in Germany, France and
Belgium. Important also is the introduction, to replace hand
loading, of mechanical devices for loading, for conveying, or for
both. The extent to which these devices have made headway in
recent years can be seen by the data for Great Britain and the
United States. In Great Britain the number of mechanical conveyors in use at the coal face increased from 359 in 1913 and 823
in 1920 to 4,966 in 19362; while the proportion of output conveyed
mechanically from the face and elsewhere quadrupled from 12 per
cent, in 1928 to 48 per cent, in 1936 3. In the United States the
underground output of bituminous coal loaded mechanically rose
from 0.3 per cent, of the total in 1923 to 7.4 per cent, in 1929 and
to 13.5 per cent, in 1935 4.
The mechanisation of coal mining has involved much more than
the substitution of mechanical cutting and loading for hand labour.
1
Disregarding bituminous coal won from strip mines, the proportion of
underground output undercut mechanically has risen from 51 per cent, in 1913
to 84 per cent, in 1935.
2
Of the conveyors in 1936, 2,199 were run by compressed air and 2,767
by electricity.
3
For detailed annual figures see UNITED KINGDOM, MINES DEPARTMENT:
16th Annual Report of the Secretary for Mines, 1937, p. 178.
4
For details on number of different machines and on annual figures, see
Minerals Year-Booh, 1936, p. 563, and 1937, pp. 796 and 831.
— 108 —
Underground haulage systems have been extensively mechanised
through the replacement of animal traction (mules) by electrical
locomotives. In the operation of loading equipment underground
as well as in the hoisting of coal up the shaft, electric power has been
tending to displace steam power. On the surface, considerable
progress has been made in the installation of plants (operated
electrically, moreover, instead of by steam) for washing, breaking,
sizing and otherwise preparing raw coal for the market. A larger
proportion of the total output is being obtained by the more
mechanical processes of strip mining from open pits; for example,
bituminous and anthracite coal in the United States, and lignite
in Germany. Mechanisation in strip mining has been still more
intensified as the capacity of power shovels and of other excavating
apparatus has been enlarged and the replacement of steam by
electric power carried forward.
Higher
Productivity
From the viewpoint of labour welfare, the movement to
mechanisation in coal mining is of the utmost importance because
of its effects on earnings, hours of work and employment 1 .
From the viewpoint of capacity, what matters is that a man-hour
of labour or a machine-hour of use obtains at present considerably
more coal than formerly. Thus, labour and machine productivity
have been mounting despite their " natural " tendency to decline
as the richer and more accessible deposits are worked out—a
striking example of how the general progress of science may offset
the effects of " natural " conditions.
The growth of productivity in coal mining in various countries
since 1913 is summarised in table X I I .
From table X I I it may be seen that, between 1913 and 1936,
productivity of labour in coal mining rose by at least 117 per cent.
for the Netherlands, 81 per cent, for Germany (Ruhr), 73 per cent.
for Poland (East Upper Silesia), 50-51 per cent, for Belgium and
Czechoslovakia (bituminous), 22-25 per cent, for the United States
(bituminous) and France and 10 per cent, for Great Britain. In fact,
these figures materially underestimate the true scope of the movement towards higher man-hour output, for they are based on
output per man-shift and thus fail to take account of the shortening of the length of the working day between 1913 and 1936.
In all cases, except that of the United States, the greater part
1
For a discussion of these problems see Chapter VIII and Vol. II.
— 109 —
TABLE
XII.
OUTPUT OF COAL PER
MAN-SHIFT
(a),
SELECTED
COUNTRIES, 1913-1936
(In kg.)
Year
1913
1925
1927
1929
1932
1934
1935
1936
. . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Germanv
(Ruhr)
Belgium
943
946
1,132
1,271
1,625
1,677
1,692
1,710
528
472
513
576
609
735
775
795
United
States
(bituminous)
3,270
4,100
4,130
4,400
4,730
3,890
4,080
fí reat
France Britain
701 (b) 1,090
563
904
606
1,043
694
1,102
783
1,116
858
1,165
872
1,185
858
1,195
Poland CzechoNe(East slovakia
ther- Upper
(bitulands Silesia) minous).
820
837
1,018
1,247
1,445
1,689
1,747
1,781
1,202
1,023
1,287
1,356
1,635
1,957
2,026
2,073
970
819
996
1,041
1,069
1,204
1.340(c)
l,458(c)
117.2
42.8
72.5
52.9
50.2
40.0
Percenta gè increa se
1913-1936.
1929-1936.
81.4
34.5
50.6
38.1
24,8
—7.3(d)
22.4
23.6
9!6
8.4
(a) Length of shift: Germany—8.5 hours in 1913; 8 hours in 1925, 1927, 1929; 8 hours
exclusive of winding time, 1932 to 1936 inclusive. Belgium—9 hours in 1913; 7 hours
50-55 minutes 1925 to 1936 inclusive. United States (weighted average working day)—
8.6 hours in 1913; 8.08 hours in 1925, 1927 and 1929; 8.10 hours in 1932; 7.27 hours in
1934 (40-hour week); 7.02 hours in 1935 (35-hour, 5-dav week). France—9 hours in 1913;
8 hours in 1925; 7 3/4 hours in 1927, 1929; 7 %-8 Y, hours in 1932, 1934, 1935; 7% hours
(5-day week) since November 1936. Great Britain—8.5 hours in 1913; 7.5 hours in 1925;
8-8.5 hours in 1927, 1929; 7.5 hours exclusive of winding times, 1932 to 1936 inclusive.
Netherlands—9 hours in 1913; 8 hours 10 minutes, 1925 to 1935 inclusive; 7.5 hours
exclusive of winding times, 1936. Poland—9-10.5 hours in 1913; 8 hours 2 minutes thereafter. Czechoslovakia—9.5 hours in 1913; 7 hours 20-28 minutes, 1925 to 1936.
(6) Including Alsace-Lorraine; without it, 695 kg.
(c) Productivity at the year's end.
(d) But the length of the shift was shortened; on the man-hour basis, productivity
rose strongly between 1929 and 1935.
SOURCE: Statistische Uebersicht, 1936, supplemented by national statistics.
or the whole of the increase in output per man-shift was obtained
after 1929; this is especially true pi France and Great Britain.
Between 1929 and 1936, labour productivity advanced by 53 per
.cent, in Poland, by 38-43 per cent, in the Netherlands, Czechoslovakia and Belgium, by 35 per cent, in Germany, by 24 per
cent, in France and by 8-9 per cent, in Great Britain. The fall
of 7.3 per cent, in the case of the United States is.the statistical
reflection of a drastic cut in the length of the working day after the
autumn of 1933 ; on a man-hour basis, productivity rose considerably
between 1929 and 1936.
By no means the whole of the expansion of labour productivity
since 1913 or 1929 can be attributed to the progressive mechanisation of. mining practices. Between 1913 and 1936, continuous
— 110 —
rationalisation of mine lay-out and of the sequence of mining
activities was an important contributory factor. Between 1929
and 1936, in response to the heavy fall in demand, mining activities
tended to concentrate on the most productive coal properties and
on the richest, seams within individual properties, while the highly
selective reduction of total labour force must have raised the
average skill and speed of employed workers. Although it would be
impossible to assess the exact weight of each of these factors, it
may reasonably be supposed that the greatest influence was exerted
by the trend towards mechanical undercutting, loading and
conveying together with the shift from steam and mule power to
electric power.
Although the increase of labour productivity as a result of
mechanisation and other causes has undeniably enlarged the
margin of excess capacity, it has also lowered costs of production
and thus helped coal somewhat in its competitive struggle against
petroleum, natural gas and water power, while simultaneously
checking somewhat the impulse to further fuel economies. In the
long run, at least, enlargement of power to supply has thus been
offset by a strong stimulus to demand. In the short run, however,
the offset would probably be small in view of the limited elasticity
of demand for coal 1 . As in the case of fuel economy, so also
in that of the mechanisation of mining practices, the total contribution to over-capacity has probably been much less than an
uncritical examination of the available statistics would suggest.
V.
NATURE AND EXTENT OF SURPLUS CAPACITY
Official estimates of the development of national excess capacity
have been made, so far as the International Labour Office is aware,
only for the bituminous coal mines of the United States; these
estimates are summarised in table XIII. Because of the large
weight of the United States output in the world total and the
proved ability of this country to furnish coal to European markets
during periods of shortage, the figures of table XIII have more
than national significance. It should be further kept in mind
that the interplay of supply and demand forces in the United States
is a reflection, as it were, of the factors determining capacity
1
Despite the key importance of the problem, the elasticity of demand for
coal has barely been touched upon at all in the scientific investigations of
the industry; For an interesting attempt to fill this gap, see A. M. NEUMAN:
Economic Organisation of the British Coal Industry, London, 1934, pp. 66-126.
— Ill —
in the world as a whole. The main conclusions may be summarised
as follows:
First, in each year from 1900 to 1935 inclusive, there was a large
and varying margin between actual output of bituminous coal and
the output which could have been obtained by full-time operation,
even within commercial limits, of the existing capacity.
Second, in absolute tonnage involved, excess capacity rose from
a minimum of 43 million short tons on the commercial basis in 1900
to a maximum of 320 million tons in 1923; it fell back to
144 million tons during the boom activity of 1929 and since
then has gone up to the level of about 171 million tons.
Third, as a proportion of actual output, the margin of excess
capacity rose from 20-21 per cent, in the pre-war years to 56-57 per
cent, in 1923; fell to 27 per cent, in 1929; soared to over 90 per cent.
at the depth of the depression in 1932; and has since declined to
the level of 46 per cent.
TABLE XIII. — DEVELOPMENT OF BITUMINOUS COAL-MINING
CAPACITY, UNITED STATES, 1 9 0 0 - 1 9 3 5
(In million short tons)
Calculated
capacity
Year
1900
1913
1923
1929
1932
1933
1934
1935
Margin of excess
capacity
ty
(commerat 261
cial)
d a y s as percentage
of
actual
(c)
output
Actual
'
produc- at 308 at 280
tion
days
days
at 261
days
at 308
days
at 280
days
(a)
(i>)
(c)
(a)
(b)
279
635
970
752
653
615
622
640
255
577
885
679
594
559
(236)
(538)
(823)
(638)
(554)
(513)
43
99
320
144
284
225
(24)
(60)
(258)
(103)
(244)
(179)
(565)
(382)
527
543
67
157
405
217
343
279
263
268
(206)
(210)
168
171
212
478
565
535
310
334
359
372
Excess
capaci-
20.2
20.7
56.6
26.9
91.6
67.4
46.8
46.0
(a) Full time before October 1933.
(6) Commercial capacity before October 1933: that is, full time with allowance for
seasonality of demand, unavoidable shutdowns, etc.
(c) Commercial capacity after October 1933 on basis of five-day week.
SOURCE: Minerais Year-Booh, 1936, 1937.
While exact data for the other chief coal-producing countries are
not available, the findings of the Economic Committee (1929) that
there was 25 per cent, of surplus capacity in Germany, from 25 to
— 112 —
33 per cent, in Great Britain, and about 50 per cent, in Poland have
already been cited 1. Between 1929 and 1936, there is reason to
believe, these margins have widened considerably, for falling levels
of output have run parallel with rising levels of productivity.
It would therefore be impossible, in reviewing the development
of coal mining during the post-war years, particularly since 1929,
not to conclude that the industry was suffering from a serious
unbalance between power to supply and volume of effective demand.
This is not to say that coal mining has suffered from " overproduction ", for the tonnage of coal mined has been and continues
to be very sensitive to immediate fluctuations of market demand.
It is to say, however, that the combined repercussions of the factors
curtailing demand (mainly fuel economies) and of those enlarging
power to supply (mainly mechanisation) have led to a state of
potential over-capacity, in the sense of the ability (because of
available plant and equipment) and the need (because of fixed
charges) to produce more output (coal and lignite) than the market
is capable of absorbing at prices which at least cover costs of
production.
This situation has affected, on the one hand, the course of the
trade in coal on world and home markets' and the severity of
international and inter-district competition; on the other hand, it
has given rise to various schemes—national and international—
for the control of output and prices and for the general regulation
of the industry. The following four chapters will therefore deal
with developments in the world coal trade and with schemes
for the better ordering of the coal-mining industry.
1
See p. 75. These findings relate to 1927-1928; but world output of coal
and lignite in 1929 was only 6-7 per cent, greater than in 1928 and only 4-5
per cent, greater than in 1927.
CHAPTER VI
THE WORLD TRADE IN COAL
The patterns of production and consumption and the changes
in the supply-demand factors described in Chapters IV and V
provide a clue to an understanding of the present condition of
the world trade in coal and of the changes which have taken
place in the trading relations between coal-exporting and coalimporting countries. It is the purpose of the present chapter to
describe these trading relationships and the main changes which
have taken place in them since the World War.
I.
RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF COAL IN FOREIGN TRADE
Despite its large volume by weight \ coal is a relatively minor
factor in the total of world trade. Of the total value of world
1
Like the data on production and consumption, so also statistics of the trade
in coal are affected by territorial changes which make comparisons between
the pre-war and post-war periods difficult. No systematic attempt is made
in this chapter to adjust for losses and gains in the coal trade by individual
countries due to territorial changes.
Even more perplexing is the question of how to treat loadings of bunker
coal by steamships engaged in foreign trade. On the theory that the coal is
consumed outside the country which produces it, should all such bunker
loadings be regarded as exports ? On the theory that transfers in the international balance of payments take place, should only that part of bunker
loadings be regarded as exports which is consumed by vessels of foreign
registry ? The statistical data are insufficient and incomparable. Some
countries do not report bunker loadings separately; others do not distinguish
between loadings by foreign trade vessels of home and foreign registry; still
others do not distinguish between bunker loadings for foreign and domestic
trade. In view of this, the only practical solution is to include bunker loadings
with exports but also to show them separately, where possible. Still another
difficulty arises from the fact that a large but undetermined proportion of
all the coal shipped as cargo, particularly from Great Britain and South Africa,
is shipped to serve as bunker supplies at foreign fuelling ports. It is uncertain
to what extent, in particular cases, such receipts of bunker shipments are
treated as imports by the countries of the fuelling ports in question. Similarly
uncertain is the extent to which the subsequent sale of the bunker fuel is
counted as an export of coal. From such data as the Office has been able
to gather, the Netherlands appears to be one of the few cases where shipments
of bunker fuel " in transit " are excluded from the export and import sides
of the foreign trade equation. It is possible, therefore, that the figures for
countries overstate either the volume of imports or the volume of exports
or both.
CR. I.
8
— 114 —
trade in recent years, coal, coke, briquettes and oils derived from
coal have been responsible only for a little less than 3 per cent.,
as shown below:
Raw coal
Lignite
Coke
Coal briquettes
Lignite briquettes
Oil from coal
. . . .
SOURCE: G E R M A N Y : Statistisches
Jahrbuch,
1929
1932
1935
1936
2.07
0.04
0.35
0.05
0.03
0.11
2.60
0.04
0.36
0.08
0.05
0.10
2.35
0.04
0.37
0.07
0.05
0.10
2.16
0.02
0.38
0.06
0.04
0.10
2.65
3.23
2.98
2.76
1937.
For many individual countries, however, the foreign trade in
coal products is of much greater significance. Coal exports are
especially important to the welfare of the national economy in
the case of Poland, where shipments of coal and its products are
between 14 and 15 per cent, of the value of total exports; of
Great Britain and Germany whose coal exports are between 7 and
8 per cent, of the total value of all exports 1; of the Netherlands,
Czechoslovakia and Belgium whose exports are between 5 and
6 per cent, of total exports. Imports of coal are particularly
important to the national economy of Italy whose imports of coal
and its products represent about 13 per cent, of the value of all
imports; of Latvia, France, Denmark, Sweden, Austria, Switzerland
and Ireland whose coal imports range between 7 and 10 per cert.
of their respective total imports. The details are shown in table I.
Exports-in Relation to Output
About nine-tenths of all the coal mined in the world as a whole
is mined for consumption within the separate national economies;
about one-tenth enters into the channels of international trade.
Since 1913 the ratio of coal shipments in foreign trade to the
total world output has steadily decreased, as shown in table II.
In many countries, however, the export ratios are above the
world average. Highest of all is the export ratio for the Netherlands where well over a half of the output is shipped abroad.
1
The proportion would be nearer 10 per cent, if bunker fuel were included
in the British figures; and coal-tar dyes in those of Germany.
— 115 —
TABLE I.
IMPORTS AND EXPORTS OF COAL AND COAL PRODUCTS
AS PERCENTAGE OF VALUE OF ALL IMPORTS AND EXPORTS,
BY COUNTRIES, 1935-1936
Imports
Country
1935
Exports
1936
1935
Algeria
2.1
1.9
2.1
2.0
Germany
7.9 (a)
6.0
6.2
Argentina
0.3
Australia
8.4
7.5
Austria
4.2
4.4
3.9
Belgium
4.0
3.9
Brazil
6.1
0.3
5.5
Canada
2.9
3.1
Ceylon
. . . . . . . .
0.2
Chile
0.9
1.1 (b)
0.7
China
1.9
1.4 (d)
Cuba
9.2
9.6
Denmark
5.4
3.8 (e)
Egypt
2.6
2.7 (d)
Spain
1.3
1.3
Estonia
2.M/)
United States
4.4
5.9
Finland
8.6
1.2
9.3
France
8.M/)
Great Britain
4.2
3.9
Greece
3.2
2.8
0.8
Hungary
India
0.3
0.3
0.2 (b)
7.6 (e)
N e t h e r l a n d s E a s t Indies
6.6 M
12.8
13.2
Ireland
2.0
0.4 (/)
1.8
Italy
9.7
10.8
Japan
4.7
4.8
Latvia
0.9
0.8
Lithuania
6.7 M
6.8 (e)
British Malaya
. . . .
0.3 (e)
0.2
Norway
4.1
5-8 (g)
(g)
3.8 (g)
New Zealand
0.1
0.2
Netherlands
0.9
1.0
Peru
15.2
Philippines
6.8
2.8
6.1
Poland
0.5
0.5 (d)
Portugal
8.5
9.0
Rumania
6.8
7.4
Sweden
3.0
2.4
4.8
Switzerland
0.4
0.4 (d)
2.8
Czechoslovakia
. . . .
2.6
Turkey
0.6 (/)
U.S.S.R
5.5 (d)
5.0
Union of South Africa .
2.0
3.4
Uruguay
Yugoslavia
(a) Excluding coal-tar dyes.
(e) General trade.
(f>) Including bunker fuel.
(/) Excluding bunker fuel.
(c) 1934.
(g) Excluding bunker fuel " in transit '
(d) 1935.
SOURCE: LEAGUE OF NATIONS: International Trade Statistics, 1935 and 1936.
— 116 —
TABLE
II. —
PERCENTAGES
OF WORLD
COAL
OUTPUT
ENTERING
FOREIGN TRADE, 1913-1936
Including bunker loadings
(foreign trade) and bunker
fuel (foreign trade) shipped
as cargo
Excluding bunker loadings
(foreign trade)
Excluding all bunker fuel
1913
1929 '
1932
1935
1936
16.5
15.1
14.3
12.6
11.5
13.9
12.9
12.1
10.8
9.9
12.6
12.2
11.4
10.3
9.3
S O U R C E S : Computed from L E A G U E OF N A T I O N S : The Problem of the Coal Industry
and Statistische Uebersicht, 1936.
(1929),
Poland and Belgium export from 25 to 30 per cent, of their
respective outputs; while Great Britain and Germany each
sell abroad one-fifth of the national output.
The details for
recent years are given in table I I I .
TABLE
III.
EXPORTS
O F COAL AS P E R C E N T A G E
OF P R O D U C T I O N ,
SELECTED COUNTRIES, 1933-1936
(Lignite, coke and briquettes converted into equivalent coal units)
Country
Netherlands
Poland
Belgium
Great Britain
Germany
Union of South Africa . .
Czechoslovakia
Australia
China (excluding Manchuria)
Manchuria
Canada
United States
'.
France
Japan
U.S.S.R
Spain
SOUHCES: Computed from Statistical
1933
1934
1935
1936
52.3
34.1
20.9
27.2
20.1
15.4
14.3
8.3
3.1
51.0
2.8
3.6
6.1
11.0
2.4
0.1
53.6
35.5
20.8
25.7
20.7
15.3
15.7
53.1
32.6
22.5
24.8
21.4
16.6
14.3
8.1
4.2
35.8
3.9
3.3
3.7
2.7
2.1
0.2
54.2
29.7
24.9
21.9
20.7
15.7
13.5
8.0
7.0
34.0
3.5
3.0
3.0
2.7
1.5
0.4
Year-booh,
8.8
3.9
37.1
2.7
3.5
6.0
8.8
2.4
0.2
1936-37; Statistische
Uebersicht, 1936.
Even for the great coal-exporting countries, it is evident t h a t
the home market is far more important t h a n the foreign outlets.
In fact, the figures given above somewhat exaggerate the export
— 117 —
ratios of some of the countries concerned (principally t h a t of
Great Britain) 1 .
Imports
in Relation to
Consumption
At one extreme are Argentina, Denmark and Switzerland, which
import the whole of their coal supplies. At the other extreme are
TABLE IV.
IMPORTS OF COAL AS PERCENTAGE OF DOMESTIC
CONSUMPTION, SELECTED COUNTRIES, 1934-1936
(Lignite, coke and briquettes converted into equivalent coal units)
1934
1935
1936
100.6 (a)
101.4
100.5 (a)
Argentina
100.0
100.0
100.0
Denmark
100.0
100.0
100.0
Switzerland
96.1
98.0
96.5
Ireland
89.4
97.0
92.3
Norway
94.3
96.5
93.7
94.7
94.8
93.8
Greece
96.3
89.2
96.5
Sweden
65.7
68.8
61.8
Italy
59.7
60.0
61.2
Brazil
55.4
54.5
57.0
Austria
51.7
49.8
53.8
32.6 (c)
34.3 (c)
26.9 (b)
Canada
25.3
26 2
27.3
Netherlands
14.3
21
15.9
France
22.5
16 6
19.4
Belgium
12.5
15 3
14.8
Spain
92
11.0
9.9
5
Yugoslavia
7.2
6.3
8.0
10.9
Hungary
8.0
8.0
7.8
Japan
7.5
7.5
8.2
8.3
Netherlands East Indies . .
6.8
4.2 (ft)
5.1 (c)
Rumania
4.5 (6)
3.7
4.9
2.9
New Zealand
0.7
0.8
0.4
Czechoslovakia
0.9
0.9
0.8
Germany
7.0
0.9
2.5
China, (excluding Manchuria)
0.4
0.4
0.1
Manchuria
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.1
Poland
0.0
0.0
0.0
Turkey
0.1
Australia
(a)United
ImportStates
ratios of more than 100.0 per cent, indicate the accumulation of stocks.
(6) Including imports into, and consumption of the Saar.
Britainimports into, and consumption of the Saar.
(c)Great
Excluding
U.S.S.R
SOURCES:
Computed from International Trade Statistics, 1936; Statistische Uebersicht, 1936.
1
Where such information is available, bunker loadings by vessels engaged
in foreign trade have been counted as exports, regardless of the nationality
of such vessels. In some cases, therefore, the export quotas necessarily include
appreciable tonnages of coal which were consumed by the merchant marine
of the producing countries in question. See above, p. 113.
— 118 —
the Soviet Union, Great Britain and the United States which take
only negligible fractions of their coal supply from foreign sources.
In between are all the other countries—as may be seen from
table IV.
The Coal Trade Balances of Individual
Countries
A number of countries—for example, Argentina, Denmark, Egypt,
France, Italy, Sweden and Switzerland—participate in the international coal trade exclusively or mainly as importers. A number
of other countries—for example, the United States, Great Britain,
Poland and the Soviet Union—export considerable tonnages but
import very little. In contrast, some of the countries engaging
in the coal trade do so both as exporters and importers on a considerable scale; for example, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands 1.
Trading balances in coal of individual countries are calculated
in table V.
On the basis of these calculations, three groups of countries
may be distinguished.
(1) Countries with large export balances; the most important
of these are Great Britain, Germany and Poland in Europe
and the United States overseas.
(2) Countries with large import balances. Some of these
countries—for example, France and Canada—export to
some extent, but in most cases exports are negligible or
entirely lacking—for example Italy, Sweden and Switzerland.
(3) Countries importing and exporting considerable tonnages
of coal at the same time, which have relatively small
balances either way. This group includes Belgium and
Japan (small import surplus) and the Netherlands and
Czechoslovakia (small export surplus).
These findings suggest that the international trade in coal is
complicated, involving complementary interchange of specific
qualities of coal as well as shipments from countries rich in coal
to those poor in coal.
1
The most striking examples are the Netherlands which exports over
half of its coal production but imports almost half of its coal consumption,
and Belgium with export quotas and import ratios of approximately one-fifth
of production and consumption respectively.
- 119 —
TABLE
V.
NET
IMPORT
OR EXPORT
SELECTED COUNTRIES
BALANCES,
COAL TRADE,
1934-1936
(Coke, briquettes and lignite converted into equivalent coal units of million
metric tons)
Great Britain . .
Germany
. . .
United States
Poland
U.S.S.R
Union of S o u t h
Africa
. . . .
Australia . . . .
China
Manchuria . . .
Turkey
India
Great Britain ,
Germany . .
United States .
Poland . . . .
Union of S o u t h
Africa . .
I China . . .
I Manchuria .
Australia . .
Netherlands .
Belgium
. . . .
Netherlands
. .
Czechoslovakia .
China, (excluding
Manchuria) . .
Japan
France . .
Italy . . .
Sweden
Denmark .
Canada
Japan . .
Brazil . .
Argentina
Spain . .
Austria . .
Switzerland
Ireland . .
Hungary .
Export
1934
Im- Balance Export
port
1935
ImExport Balance port
1936
Import Balance
57.7
32.1
13.4
10.4
2.0
Countries with substantial export balances
(a) Bunker loadings included in exports
0.2 —50.7
0.1 —57.6 56.1 0.1 —56.0 50.9
6.7 —25.4 37.6 6.0 —31.6 40.2
7.3 —32.9
0.8 —12.6 12.5 1.1 —12.4 13.5 1.2 —12.3
0.2 —10.2 9.3 0.2 — 9.1 8.8
0.2 — 8.6
0.0 — 2.0 2.2 — — 2.2 1.9
0.0 — 1.9
— 2.2 2.3
1.9
— 1.9 2.2
0.9 0.0 — 0.9 1.0
0.0 — 1.0 1.0
(5.2) (1.0) ( - 4 . 2 ) (5.2) (0.9) ( - 4 . 3 ) (5.2) (0.7)
4.0 0.0 — 4.4 4.3 0.1 — 4.2 3.8
0.1
0.7
0.1 — 0.6 0.5
0.0
0.0 — 0.7 0.7
0.8 0.1 — 0.7 0.8 0.1 — 0.7 0.7
0.1
(b) Bunker loadings excluded from exports
(selected countries)
44.1 0.1 —44.0 43.4 0.1 —43.3 38.8 0.2
32.0 6.7 —25.3 37.4 6.0 —31.4 40.0
7.3
12.2 0.8 —11.4 11.0 1.1 — 9.9 12.0 1.2
0.2
9.9 0.2 — 9.7 8.8 0.2 — 8.6 8.2
— 2.3
— 1.0
(-4.5)
— 3.7
— 0.5
— 0.6
, — 1.0 1.2
,
1.0
(4.0) (1.0) ( - 3 . 0 ) (3.9) (0.9)
3.8 0.0 — 3.8 3.6 0.1
0.3 0.0 — 0.3 0.3 0.0
6.3 6.7 + 0.4 6.1 6.0
Countries with, relativ
5.5
7.8 + 2.3 6.0
7.0
6.6 6.7 + 0.1 6.3 6.0
3.1 1.5 — 1.6 2.8 1.5
— 1.4
(-3.2)
— 3.0
— 0.3
— 0.8
0.8
3.2
3.6
0.3
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
— 1.2 1.4
( - 3 . 0 ) (3.9) (0.7)
— 3.5 3.1
0.1
— 0.3 0.3
—
— 0.1 6.6
5.8
ely small balances
+ 1.0 6.9
7.4
— 0.3 7.0 5.8
— 1.3 2.9 1.4
1.0 + 0.2 0.9 0.8 —
4.1 + 0.9 3.0 4.1 +
Countries with substantial
20.5 + 16.9 1.7 21.6 +
13.1 + 13.1
14.9 +
6.2 + 6.2
7.6 +
5.6 + 5.6
5.9 +
13.7 + 13.4 0.4 12.4 +
4.1
4.1
2.9 1.0
1.1
1.4
1.1
2.8
2.8 0.0 2.7
1.2
1.2 0.0 1.2
3.1
3.0
3.1
3.4
3.4
3.4
2.4
2.4 0.0 2.3
0.5
0.4 0.1 0.4
—38.6
—32.7
—10.8
— 8.0
+
+
+
0.5
1.2
1.5
0.1 1.4
0.6
0.8
4.2
1.1 3.1
1.1
import balances
19.9 1.4 23.1 + 21.7
14.9
8.5 + 8.5
7.6
8.4 + 8.4
5.9
6.3 + 6.3
12.0 0.4 13.2 + 12.8
3.1 1.1
4.2 + 3.1
1.4
1.4 + 1.4
2.7 0.0 2.6 + 2.9
1.2
3.0
3.0 + 3.0
3.4
3.5 + 3.5
2.3 0.0
2.5 + 2.5
0.3 0.1 0.6 + 0.5
+ equals net import balance; — equals net export balance.
SOURCE: Computed from Statistische Uebersichl, 1936.
— 120 —
Coincidence of high export ratios with high import ratios reflects
the specific international distribution of coking, gas, bunker and
household coals, and further suggests that the ability of a country
to export coal should not be taken as synonymous with selfsufficiency in any absolute sense of that term 1.
II.
T H E CURRENTS OF COAL EXPORTS AND IMPORTS
Exports of Coal and its Products
The bulk of foreign trade shipments of coal and its products is
supplied by a dozen countries. Four countries combined—Great
Britain, Germany, the United States and Poland—account for more
than 75 per cent, of the world's total exports of coal (including bunker
loadings in foreign trade). Great Britain and Germany are close
rivals for first place in the international coal trade. If bunker loadings
are included, Great Britain exports the greater total: if they are
excluded, Germany takes the lead by a perceptible margin. With
the addition of the tonnage supplied by the Netherlands,
Belgium, Japan, Czechoslovakia, the Union of South Africa and
the Soviet Union, well over nine-tenths of the aggregate is covered.
The details are shown in table VI.
The coal exporting countries may be arranged into eight groups,
partly regional and partly on the basis of supplying common
markets. Details are given in table V I I , which brings out the
predominance of Germany, Great Britain and Poland regarded as
competitors; these three countries supply over two-thirds of the
world's coal exports. It is also seen from table VII t h a t there
are two other groups—the Netherlands, Belgium, France, and the
United States, Canada—each of which is individually responsible
1
As regards coal, it would be impossible to raise the question of raw
materials and colonies in the form in which it has been recently discussed.
On the one hand, almost all of the Great Powers which are generally said to
lack raw materials or colonies or both, are well endowed with coal resources
(e.g. Germany, Japan, Poland), while Italy's coal deficiencies are largely
compensated for to some extent by a richness in water power. On the other
hand, no conceivable reshuffling of the strictly colonial possessions could
serve to modify the existing distribution of coal resources in favour of the
countries which lack solid fuel in commercial quantity. Only 0.8 per cent, of the
world's output of coal and lignite was supplied in 1936 by the combined mining
activities of French Indo-China, Korea, Formosa, Saghalien, Netherlands
East Indies, Spitzbergen, Federated Malay States, Nigeria, French Morocco,
Belgian Congo, Mozambique, Algeria, British Borneo.
121
TABLE VI.
PERCENTAGE OF WORLD EXPORTS OF COAL AND ITS
PRODUCTS BY COUNTRIES,
1934-1936
(Lignite, coke and briquettes converted into equivalent coal units)
Country
A. Bunker
1934
1935
1936
loadings
Cumulative
percentage
1936
in foreign trade included, as well as bunker
(foreign trade) shipped as cargo
Total exports (million metric
148.6
tons)
148.9
147.8
Great Britain
Germany
United States
Poland
Netherlands
Belgium
I China
| Manchuria
Japan
Czechoslovakia
Union of South
U.S.S.R
France
Australia
India
Turkey
Other countries
Total
B.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
Africa
(g)
.
38.8
21.6 a)
9.0
7.0
4.5
3.7
(3.6)
3.0
2.1
2.1
1.3
1.5
2.4 (d)
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.8
100.0
37.6
25.2 (b)
8.4
6.2
4.2
4.0
(3.5)
2.9
2.0 [c)
1.9
1.5
1.5
1.1 (e)
0.7
0.5
0.5
1.2
100.0
34.4
27.2 (¿>)
9.1
6.0
4.7
4.7
(3.5)
2.6
2.1 (c)
2.0
1.6
1.3
0.9 («)
0.7 (/)
0.5
0.4
0.9
100.0
Bunker
loadings in foreign trade excluded, but not bunker
(foreign trade) shipped as cargo
Total exports (million metric
tons)
126.9
127.6
126.5
Germany . . .
Great Britain .
United States .
Poland . . . .
Netherlands . .
Belgium
I China
] Manchuria . . .
Czechoslovakia .
U.S.S.R.
. . .
France . . . .
Japan
Other c o u n t r i e s .
Total
25.2 (a)
34.7
9.6
7.8
4.9
4.1
(3.2)
3.0
2.4
1.7
2.8 (d)
0.9
2.7
100.0
29.3 (b)
34.0
8.6
7.0
4.8
4.3
(3.0)
2.8
2.2
1.8
1.3
0.8
2.9
100.0
31.6 (b)
30.6
9.5
6.5
5.2
5.1
(3.0)
2.4
2.4
1.5
1.1 (e)
0.9 (c)
2.6
100.0
fuel
34.4
61.6
70.7
76.7
81.4
86.1
(89.6)
88.7
90.8
92.8
94.4
95.7
97.5
98.2
98.7
99.1
100.0
fuel
31.6
62.2
71.7
78.2
83.4
88.5
(91.5)
90.9
93.3
94.8
95.9
96.8
100.0
(a) Including exports lo the Saar, then joined in Customs Union with France.
(h) Including exports from the Saar, then reassimilated to Germany.
(c) Including estimate of 2.0 million tons bunker coal.
(d) Including exports ¡rom the Saar.
(e) Including exports lo the Saar.
(/) Estimated at 1.0 million tons.
(¡7) The most important of these, in approximate order, are Canada, Norway (Spitzbergen), Netherlands East Indies, Portugal, Chile, Hungary.
SOURCE: Computed from Slatislisches Jahrbuch, 1936, supplemented by national trade
returns.
— 122 —
for about one-tenth of the world's shipments of coal and its products in foreign trade.
TABLE VII. — PERCENTAGE OF WORLD EXPORTS OF COAL AND ITS
PRODUCTS CONTRIBUTED BY REGIONAL GROUPINGS, 1 9 3 4 - 1 9 3 6
(Lignite, coke and briquettes converted into equivalent coal units)
(Bunker loadings (foreign trade), included in exports)
Regional grouping
Great Britain, Germany, Poland .
France, Belgium, Netherlands . .
Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Yugoslavia
1934
1935
1936
67.4 (a)
10.6 (c)
69.0 (¿>)
9.3 (d)
67.6 (b)
10.3 (d)
2.1
2.0
2.1
Total above European countries
80.1
80.3
80.0
Japan and China with Manchuria
Australia, India, South Africa . .
5.7
2.5
5.5 (e)
2.7
5.6 (e)
2.8 (/)
Total above overseas countries .
9.3
8.2
8.4
United States and Canada . . .
U.S.S.R
Other countries
9.2
1.5
0.9
8.7
1.5
1.3
9.4
1.3
0.9
100.0
100.0
100.0
Total
(a) Including exports to the Saar (Customs Union with France).
(6) Including exports from the Saar (Germany).
(c) Including exports from the Saar.
(d) Including exports to the Saar.
(e) Including estimate of 2.0 million tons bunker loadings (foreign trade), Japan.
(/) Including estimate of 1.0 million tons, Australia.
SOURCE: Computed from table VI, p. 121.
Bunker Coal
As already indicated, it would be incorrect to leave all bunker
loadings by foreign trade vessels out of account. In view of the
statistical difficulties involved \ all that can be done is to show
the international distribution of bunker loadings (foreign trade)
specifically. From table Vili 2 it appears that almost 60 per cent.
of the business is ordinarily done by Great Britain. Other important
suppliers are Japan, the United States and the Union of South
Africa.
1
See p p . 113, 117.
T h e table does n o t show, however, t h e international distribution of b u n k e r
fuel for foreign t r a d e purposes shipped as cargo in foreign t r a d e . Such inform a t i o n is not available for individual countries although it is possible t o make
r o u g h estimates of t h e world volume involved.
8
— 123 —
TABLE VIII.
PERCENTAGE OF WORLD LOADINGS OF BUNKER COAL
(FOREIGN TRADE) SUPPLIED BY SELECTED COUNTRIES,
Country
Total bunker loadings (foreign trade) (a) (million
metric tons)
Great Britain
Japan
United States
Union of South Africa. .
I China
1 Manchuria
Poland
Australia
India
Belgium
Netherlands
Germany
Portugal
Other countries (c)
. . .
Total
1934
1935
1936
21.7
21.3
21.4
63.2
9.7
5.5
4.1
(5.6)
2.8
2.1
2.8
2.3
1.4
1.8
0.5
0.9
0.2
59.6
9.4 (b)
6.6
5.2
(5.9)
3.1
2.8
2.8
2.8
1.9
0.9 •
0.9
0.7
0.4
56.8
9.3 (6)
7.2
5.7
(6.5)
3.7
3.0
2.8
2.3
2.1
1.9
0.9
0.9
0.5
100.0
100.0
1934-1936
Cumulative
percentage
1936
56.6
66.1
73.3
79.0
(85.5)
82.7
85.7
88.5
93.6
95.7
97.6
98.4
99.3
100.0
100.0
(a) Bunker coal (foreign trade) shipped as cargo may be estimated (in million metric
tons) at: 1934, 7.0; 1935, 6.3; 1936, 7.9.
(b) Estimated at 2 million tons.
(c) New Zealand, Argentina, Netherlands East Indies, Chile, France.
SOURCE: Computed from Statistische Uebersicht, 1936.
Metallurgical and Gas Coke and Fuel Briquettes
Although the bulk of the coal moving in foreign trade moves
as raw coal, part of it also takes the form of coke and fuel
briquettes. Exports of fuel briquettes are such a minor element
in the world coal trade that they may here be ignored. Exports
of coke, however, are quite large. Recent figures are shown in
table IX, which indicates that the United States is the only country
outside Europe which exports coke in quantity. Even in Europe,
moreover, such exports are highly concentrated. Germany alone
is responsible for almost half of the world total, while Great Britain
and the Netherlands account for between 15 and 16 per cent. each.
— 124 —
TABLE IX.
PERCENTAGES OF WORLD EXPORTS OF COKE
SUPPLIED BY SELECTED COUNTRIES,
1934-1936
1934
1935
1936
Cumulative
percentage
1936
Germany
. . . .
Great Britain . .
Netherlands . . .
Belgium
. . . .
United States . .
Poland
Czechoslovakia
France
O t h e r countries (a)
45.9
16.3
15.6
7.4
6.7
3.0
2.2
2.2
0.7
47.8
18.1
15.3
6.5
4.3
2.2
2.9
2.2
0.7
48.0
16.0
15.3
8.7
4.0
2.7
2.7
2.0
0.7
48.0
64.0
79.3
88.0
92.0
94.7
97.4
99.4
100.0
Total . . .
100.0
100.0
100.0
Country
(a) Includes Ireland, Hungary, India, China with Manchuria, South Africa, Algeria,
Australia. Coke exports are not separately available for the U.S.S.R., Chile and Turkey.
SOURCE:
Computed from Statistische Uebersicht, 1936.
Imports of Coal and its Products
Coal and its products are imported not only by countries which
are entirely or largely deficient in solid fuel resources of any kind,
but also by countries which are deficient in specific kinds and grades.
Complementary interchanges (particularly in Western and Central
Europe) thus constitute a large part of the world's total coal
trade. The international distribution of coal imports in recent
years resulting from all kinds of interchange is shown in table X.
The predominance of France which alone takes close to one-fifth
of the world's coal imports appears clearly. France is one of
those countries where coal imports are mainly conditioned by
poverty in specific types, above all coking coal. Other indications
of the considerable importance of the complementary coal trade in
the world aggregate are afforded by the high rank as coal importers
of Canada, Belgium, Germany, Japan and the Netherlands. Among
the coal-deficient countries, Italy is the largest single importer
with about a tenth of the world total (average of 1935-1936).
Other substantial markets of this kind are constituted by the
Scandinavian and Baltic countries, certain Latin-American countries, certain Mediterranean countries, Switzerland, etc.
— 125 —
TABLE X. —
PERCENTAGES OF WORLD IMPORTS OF COAL AND ITS
PRODUCTS BY COUNTRIES,
1934-1936
(Lignite, coke and briquettes converted into equivalent units)
Country
1934
1935
1936
Total imports *
119.9
121.3
118.5
(million metric tons)
France
17.8 (¿>)
17.1 (a)
19.5
11.4
11.1
10.2
Canada
10.9
7.2 (c)
12.3
Italy
6.0
7.1
6.3
Sweden
6.5
6.2
5.8
4.7
Belgium
5.3
4.9
5.6 (b)
4.9 (a)
5.0 (a)
Denmark
\9
5.6
4.9
Germany
.4
3.4
3.5
Netherlands
.8
2.8
2.9
.4
2.3
Japan
2.8
.5
2.6
2.5
Switzerland
.2
2.3
2.4
Norway
.9
2.0
2.1
Austria
.1
1.2
1.5
0.9
.2
Argentina
1.2
1.3
.2
1.2
Ireland
0.7
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
Finland
0.9 (d)
1.1
1.4
Brazil
0.9
0.9
1.0
Czechoslovakia . . . .
0.9
0.6
0.6
United States . . . .
0.8
9.9
9.3
Spain
9.1
Egypt
100.0
100.0
100.0
Portugal
. . . . . .
Greece
* Excluding bunker loadings (foreign trade) and, so far as possible, bunker
Other
countries
. . .
trade)
imported
as cargo.
Total imports into the Saar.
(a) Including
Cumulative
percentage
1936
19.5
30.6
37.8
44.9
51.1
56.4
61.4
66.3
69.8
72.7
75.5
78.0
80.4
82.5
84.0
85.2
86.4
87.4
88.3
89.2
90.1
90.9
100.0
fuel (foreign
(b) Excluding imports into the Saar.
(c) 1936 imports were affected by Ethiopian War and sanctions.
(ri) Estimate: 1936 figure affected by Civil War.
SOURCE: Computed from Statistische Uebersicht, 1936, and national statistics.
The distribution of coal imports may be better appreciated by
arranging the individual countries into regional groupings. These
groupings are shown in table X I .
— 126 —
TABLE XI.
PERCENTAGES OF WORLD IMPORTS OF COAL AND ITS
PRODUCTS * TAKEN BY SELECTED GROUPS OF COUNTRIES, 1 9 3 4 - 1 9 3 6
(Lignite, coke and briquettes converted into equivalent coal units)
Grouping
1934
1935
1936
Cumulative
percentage
1936
Western E u r o p e (a)
Scandinavian (b) . .
North American (c) .
Mediterranean (¿) .
Centra] E u r o p e a n (e)
Asiatic a n d F a r E a s t
Latin American (g) .
Baltic (h)
B a l k a n - D a n u b i a n (¿)
' African (/)
Oceanic (k)
Total
.
.
.
.
(/)
.
.
31.5
14.2
12.3
16.0
13.1
6.5
4.0
0.8
1.0
0.5
0.1
30.6
14.9
11.5
18.0
12.3
6.0
4.2
0.7
1.2
0.5
0.1
33.2
16.7
12.4
12.0
12.4
6.1
4.4
1.0
1.1
0.6
0.1
100.0
100.0
100.0
33.2
49.9
62.3
74.3
86.7
92.8
97.2
98.2
99.3
99.9
100.0
* Excluding bunker loadings (foreign trade) and, so far as possible, bunker fuel (foreign
trade) imported as cargo.
(0) Includes Belgium, France, Great Britain, Ireland, Netherlands.
W Includes Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden.
(0 Includes Canada, the United States, Newfoundland.
(d) Includes Algeria, Egypt, Spain, Gibraltar, Italy, Malta, Morocco, Portugal, Tripoli,
Tunis
M Includes Germany, Austria, Hungary, Poland, Switzerland, Czechoslovakia.
if) Includes China, India, Netherlands East Indies, Japan, Philippines, Siam.
<<i)
Includes
(h) Includes Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Peru, Venezuela, West Indies.
(i) Includes Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, U.S.S.R.
(?) Includes Bulgaria, Greece, Rumania, Turkey, Yugoslavia.
(ft) Includes
all African countries except those with Mediterranean ports.
Australia and New Zealand.
SOURCE: Computed from Table X, p. 125.
Europe, it appears clearly, is the heart of the coal-importing
markets of the world. All in all, the several oversea markets
purchase a little more than a fifth of all the shipments of coal
and its products which enter into foreign trade; and they take these
exports from sources of supply which are largely non-competitive
with the great European exporters. In Europe itself, the centre
of gravity lies in the West European countries which are responsible for a third of the world total. The next most important
European concentration is that of the Scandinavian-Baltic group
(from 15 to 17 per cent.), followed by the Central European,
North American and Mediterranean groups (over one-tenth each).
The West European market is almost entirely composed of
countries whose imports arise out of complementary trade. Ireland
— 127 —
is the only member of this group which could be described as
almost entirely deficient in coal \ The Scandinavian and Baltic
countries, as well as the Mediterranean, in contrast, are all obliged
to import coal because of their deficiencies in fuel resources 2.
The Central European market, like the West European, owes
its existence predominantly to the deficits of its members
in particular types of coal rather than to any general deficiency 3.
The same holds substantially true of the Asiatic and Far Eastern
importers. As for Latin America, it is the general poverty of
this region in coal resources which underlies its imports of that
commodity. In North America, the bulk of the imports results
from Canada's shortage of economically exploitable fuel reserves.
Imports of Metallurgical and Gas Coke
Because a measurable part of coal imports takes the form of
coke, it might be useful to examine the international distribution
of coke imports separately. Except for a negligible fraction, the
TABLE XII.
PERCENTAGES OF WORLD COKE IMPORTS TAKEN BY
SELECTED COUNTRIES, 1934-1936
Country
Belgium . . .
France . . . .
Sweden . . .
Denmark . .
Switzerland
Germany . . .
Norway . . .
Canada. . . .
Italy
Netherlands .
Austria. . . .
Rumania . . .
Other countries
1934
16.8
16.1
11.0
9.5
5.1
5.8
3.6
6.6
7.3
2.9
2.2
2.9
10.2
1935
16.3
14.9
12.1
10.6
5.7
5.7
0.3
3.5
7.9
2.1
2.8
2.8
11.3
1936
17.1
17.1
13.8
11.2
5.3
4.6
4.6
3.9
3.3 (a)
2.6
2.6
2.6
11.3
Cumulative
percentage
1936
17.1
34.2
48.0
59.2
64.5
69.1
73.7
77.6
80.9
83.5
86.1
88.7
100.0
(a) Estimated on the assumption that coke imports declined proportionately to all coal
imports.
SOURCE: Computed from Statistische Uebersicht, 1936, and national statistics.
1
It should not be forgotten that Ireland is endowed with abundant
resources of peat.
2
But Norway (Spitzbergen) enjoys a small export trade.
3
Switzerland, although deficient in coal, is rich in water power.
— 128 —
whole of the coke passing in international trade is imported into
European markets. Of these, France and Belgium, each with
about 17 per cent, of the world total, are by far the most important.
Sweden and Denmark and Italy are also among major importers.
This is shown by table XII.
Whether raw coal or coke will move in international trade
depends at bottom on costs of production in their specific incidence
on metallurgical plants, particularly iron and steel works. Where,
having regard to all the factors, it is more economical to manufacture coke at or near the collieries of the exporting country
than at or near the metallurgical plants of the importing countries,
it is coke which moves in the channels of trade. Where, ' in
contrast, relative economy calls for the manufacture of coke at
or near the consuming works, it is raw coal which moves in world
commerce. Among the specific influences which bear upon the
problem, mention may be made of transportation charges, of
waste by deterioration in transport, of national commercial policies
aiming at the encouragement of coke manufacturing, and above
all, the possibilities of utilising the coking gases at or near the
colliery or at or near the metallurgical works.
III.
THE NETWORK OF TRADING RELATIONSHIPS
The analysis of the currents of exports and imports leads to a
consideration of the network of trading relations between countries
and regions to which they give rise. Three points are involved:
first, the markets served by coal shipments from the major exporting
countries; second, the sources of supply for major importing
markets, and third, the main channels of trade in coal and its
products which can be distinguished 1.
1
The following market groupings will be used uniformly throughout the
present analysis: West European—-Belgium, France, Great Britain (including
the Channel Islands), Ireland, the Netherlands; North European—Denmark,
Finland, Norway, Sweden (Scandinavian) and Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,
U.S.S.R. (Baltic); Central European—Germany, Austria, Hungary, Poland,
Switzerland, Czechoslovakia; Mediterranean—Algeria, Cyprus, Egypt, Spain
and ports in North Africa, Gibraltar, Italy, Malta, Morocco, Portugal, Tripoli,
Tunis; South-East European (or Balkan-Danubian)—Bulgaria, Greece, Rumania, Turkey, Yugoslavia; North American—Bermuda, Canada, United
States, Newfoundland; Latin America—all countries of Central America, the
West Indies and South America, mainly Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico;
Asiatic-Far East—all such countries except Turkey and U.S.S.R. (in Asia),
mainly Japan; African—all such countries except those included under
Mediterranean; Oceania—Australia, New Zealand.
—• 129 —
Distribution of Coal Exports
The distribution of coal exports from the main exporting
countries is shown in table XIII.
Great Britain
Bunker loadings by vessels engaged in foreign trade refuelling
at British ports constitute almost a fourth of the total exports of
coal and its products from Great Britain. Much of this bunker
coal is purchased by British ships. The next largest market in
1936 was composed of the Scandinavian and Baltic countries,
which purchased over 23 per cent, of the aggregate British
coal exports. Of almost equal magnitude were the shipments
to the West European countries. The Mediterranean market
follows with an average (1934-1936) of about one-tenth of total
exports; shipments, to Central European outlets average about
6 per cent, for the same period. Only one-tenth of British coal
shipments go to oversea markets, the bulk being shipped to
Latin America and Canada.
The largest single national market for British coal is that of
France, responsible for approximately 14 per cent, of the total.
Denmark, Italy (excluding 1936), Germany, Sweden and Ireland are
other large European markets for British coal. Outside of Europe,
Argentina is the largest individual importer of British coal, followed
by Canada.
Germany
Exports of coal and its products from Germany are even more
heavily orientated towards European markets than are shipments
from Great Britain. West European countries, the predominant
markets, are responsible for well over two-fifths of the total (44
per cent, in 1936). Next most important, with from 16 to 22
per cent, of the shipments in recent years, are the Mediterranean
markets (particularly Italy). More than one-tenth of the total is
directed to Central European outlets and somewhat less than onetenth to North European markets. Not more than 2 per cent.
of German coal exports go to satisfy the requirements of oversea
consumers (North America and Latin America). Bunker loadings
by foreign trade vessels are a negligible factor. On the other
hand, the unusually high proportion of shipments " in transit "
suggests that much German coal may be sent as cargo to serve
for bunkering purposes at foreign ports.
C.R. I.
9
TABLE
XIII.
DISTRIBUTION
OF E X P O R T S OF COAL A N D
ITS
(Coke, lignite and briquettes
E x p o r t s from (in percentage
Exports t o :
Germany
Market
Great Britain
1934 | 1935 | 1936
West European, of
which :
France:
with Saar (1934)"!
without Saar }
(1935, 1936) J
Netherlands. . .
Belgium and
Luxemburg . .
Ireland
North European, of
which :
Sweden
Denmark . . . .
Norway
. . . .
Finland
. . . .
Central
European,
of which:
Germany:
without Saar
(1934)
with Saar
(1935, 1936)
Switzerland . . .
Austria
Czechoslovakia .
Mediterranean,
of
which:
Italy
Spain
Egypt
Portugal
. . . .
South East
European
WithPoland
out
With Saar
Saar
1934 | 1935 | 1936 1934 | 1935 | 1936
Netherlands
1934 | 1935 | 1936
19.5b
20.8b
22. Sb
49.3c
43.5
44.0
21.6
14.0
15.3
48.2
46.0
13.6
13.4
14.3
19.0
19.6
21.0
8.2
11.0
12.6
24.1
24.1
2.4
2.1
2.4
14.2
11.2
10.1
2.4
1.0
1.2
1.3
1.9
0.8
3.8
0.7
5.0
14.5
1.6
12.5
0.2
12.9
3.7
7.3
1.0
1.0
1.5
—
23.1
1.0
21.9
0.0
5.0
7.3
3.3
1.6
19.9
5.0
8.1
3.4
1.8
23.3
5.7
9.5
3.7
2.0
7.3
4.1
2.1
0.3
0.4
7.2
3.8
2.4
0.4
0.2
9.0
4.1
3.2
0.8
0.3
33.7
22.6
4.7
4.0
2.0
39.0
26.7
4.7
5.0
2.1
44.3
29.6
3.1
5.2
10.2
5.9
1.9
1.4
1.0
0.6
2.0
0.4
5.4
6.2
7.0
.11.2
11.2
15.5
14.2
11.4
26.8
27.2
4.7
5.7
6.5
0.5
0.0
21.4
22.0
0.8
1.0
10.9
2.2
1.3
9.7
0.3
5.1
5.2
10.7
3.3
14.3
12.7
17.8
17.2
11.4
10.8
4.1
4.1
4.2
4.2
0.3
0.1
0.4
0.5
—
—
—
—
16.6
8.2
1.9
1.8
1.8
15.8
6.3
2.0
2.3
1.9
8.7
0.1
2.2
1.5
1.8
0.6
4.5
1.2
3.5
5.2
1.6
3.4
5.1
1.8
3.3
16.9
15.9
0.2
0.5
0.2
21.6
20.3
0.2
0.7
0.2
16.2
15.0
0.1
0.7
0.2
0.6
0.6
0.3
North American, of
which :
Canada
United States . .
4.0
3.2
0.5
3.S
3.0
0.5
3.5
2.7
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.9
0.5
of
Latin-American,
which:
Argentina. . .
Brazil . . . .
5.9
3.9
1.2
5.8
3.9
1.1
6.1
4.0
1.3
1.2
1.0
0.2
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.9d
l.Od
other
markets,
of which:
Japan
1.1
0.3
2.8
21.5
—
0.6
1.1
1.3
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.3
1.2
1.2
1.4
1.4
3.4
5.3
3.4
5.3
All
Bunker
loadings
(foreign trade) .
In transit (undeterminable) (h) .
Bunker fuel (foreign
trade) shipped as
cargo
T o t a l : (percent.)
Total : (million
metric tons) .
0.1
23.7
22.7
23.9
0.4
0.6
0.6
4.3
7.3
5.6
3.6
5.1
3.5
3.4
14.3Ì
12.8%
15.4Ì
9.1 j
10.9]
1.4k
1.0k
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
57.7
56.1
50.9
32.1
37.6
40.2
10.4
9.3
100.0
100.0
100.0
6.6
6.3
(a) This table is based, except for b u n k e r loadings (foreign t r a d e ) , on t h e import statistics of t h e countries
taking coal in foreign trade. Statistical distortions arising out of transit t r a d e and bunker fuel (foreign trade)
shipped as cargo are t h u s reduced to a minimum. — (6) Including Channel Islands. — (c) The bulk of these
to Cuba, t h e West Indies, P a n a m a , etc. — (d) The bulk of these to E a s t and West African p o r t s ; t h e rest
mainly to Palestine and Australia.—(e) To t h e Belgian Congo. — (/) Mainly to Ceylon, Netherlands E a s t Indies
and Strait Settlements (Asiatic-Far E a s t ) and to Anglo-Egyptian Sudan and P o r t u g u e s e E a s t Africa (African).—
(e) The rest to Korea, other p a r t s of China, Hong Kong. •— (h) The surplus (except Manchuria where deficit) of
cargo shipments and b u n k e r loadings as recorded in export figures over recorded net imports plus bunker loadings. — (i) Mainly t h e surplus of exports to Belgium and t h e Netherlands over net imports recorded by these
countries. Possibly made up in large p a r t of bunker fuel (foreign trade) for Belgian and Dutch ports. — (j) P r o -
PRODUCTS (a), MAJOR EXPORTING COUNTRIES, 1934-1936
converted into equivalent coal units)
of national exports)
Belgium
United States
Czechoslovakia (¡)
F r a n c e (m)
Total (o)
With
million metric tons
Saar W i t h o u t Saar
1934 I 1935 I 1936
1934 I 1935 I 1936
1934 | 1935 | 1936
1934 I 1935 I 1936
78.0
10.4
63.0
0.0
68.8
62.6
57.4
0.0
8.6
7.2
5.6
0.0
10.6
13.4
9.4
0.0
10.6
13.4
9.4
1934 | 1935 | 19
37.8
37.2
39.3
20.5
21.6
23.1
6.7
6.5
5.8
7.8
.2.4
7.0
2.3
7.4
2.5
18.0
7.6
5.6
2.8
1.4
18.9
1.9
5.9
2.9
1.3
21.0
8.4
6.4
0.4
4.2
1.7
4.3
3.9
5.9
5.1
0.5
0.4
0.8
4.4
2.6
2.1
0.1
98.0
96.3
93.8
68.4
Si.4
65.J
15.7
14.9
14.7
2.0
1.5
1.2
0.1
42.2
47.1
43.7
41.6
26.8
24.1
6.7
6.0
5.9
2.4
1.1
0.9
26.8
34.6
41.2
45.5
42.8
41.1
3.4
3.1
1.5
3.4
3.0
1.5
3.5
3.0
1.4
19.2
13.1
1.2
1.3
1.1
21.9
14.9
1.2
1.7
1.2
14.2
8.5
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.4
1.3
14.8
13.7
0.8
13.9
12.4
1.1
14.7
13.2
1.2
4.8
2.7
1.1
5.1
2.7
1.4
5.2
2.9
1.4
8.4
4.1
8.0
4.1
8.1
4.2
21.7
21.3
3.3
2.6
8.4
7.5
12.2
11.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.0
2.4
1.0
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
U.S.S.R. (n)
32.7
29.0
27.0
27.9
24.6
26.3
0.2
0.2
1.1
3.3
0.5
2.8
80.0
85.7
4.1c
0.3
0.7
0.7e
0.9e
A3.«
83.6
0.1
0.5
79.7
79.7
4.!
4.4
0.7
13.3
15.9
20.2
9.1
2.0
0.3
9.1
2.0
0.3
4.3c
0.1
0.5
Union of South Africa
42.01 43.5)
38.8f
0.0
China (Manchuria)
87.3g 87.Ig 82. lg
62.8
63.0
59.4
15.3
20.2
-1.3
—2.4
—2.3
7.0
6.3
7.9
100.0
00.0
100.0
100.0
too.o
100.0
100.0
2.3
4.4
4.3
3.8
148.6
148.9
147.8
5.9
6.9
6.5
9.0
11.5
10.9
48.4
47.9
53.1
0.9
4.2
6.1
0.7
0.0
4.9
9.6
8.6
8.1
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
5.5
6.0
6.9
13.4
12.5
13.5
1.9
2.2
14.0
?:i
bably represents "in t r a n s i t " discrepancies in t h e m a i n ; particularly as regards shipments to Central and West
European countries. — (ft) Probably includes some exports to Netherlands E a s t Indies. — (¡) Of exports
totalling 3.1, 2.8, 2.9 million metric tons, " in transit " were 0.0, 0.1, 0.15 million tons or 0.9, 2.4, 5.0 per
cent, of t h e total. — (m) Percentages exported to Mediterranean (almost all to I t a l y ) were 15.6, 19.4, 3.2.
Of exports totalling 3.6, 1.7, 1.4 million metric tons, bunker loadings were 0.1, 0.0, 0.1 per cent, and " in
t r a n s i t " , 5.3, 5.8, 22.0 per cent. — (n) To North European, 2.1, 2.1, 3.2 per cent.; to West E u r o p e a n
(France), 5.8, 7.6, 7.8 per cent.; to Central European (Switzerland), 0.0, 0.0, 0.0 per cent.; to " all other ",
9.1, 2.0, 0.3 per cent.; " in transit ", 21.4, 29.7, 26.1 per cent. E x p o r t s totalled 2.2, 2.2, 1.9 million metric
tons. — (o) Including exports by other countries.
SOURCES: Computed from Statistische Uebersicht, 1936; L E A G U E OF N A T I O N S : International
1934, 1935, 1936; national trade returns.
Trade
Statistics,
— 132 —
As regards individual countries, France is the largest purchaser
of Germany's export coal, taking over one-fifth of the total. Italy,
Belgium and the Netherlands are also of major importance, while
Switzerland, Sweden, Czechoslovakia, and Denmark purchase
fairly large amounts. None of the extra-European outlets is of
significance.
Poland
About two-fifths of Poland's coal shipments (1936) go to the
Scandinavian and Baltic countries, the next largest share, some
15 per cent., goes to West Europe. Mediterranean and Central
European markets each absorb between 10 and 11 per cent, of the
total. Bunker loadings (foreign trade) are small. Among individual
countries, Sweden takes first rank with almost 30 per cent, of
Polish export coal, while France, Italy, Austria and Norway are
important buyers in the order indicated.
Belgium and the Netherlands
Belgium and the Netherlands hold an important place in the
complementary coal trade of Western Europe. Almost half of the
exports of the Netherlands are destined for West European outlets,
chiefly France and Belgium, and about one-fourth for Central
European countries, particularly Germany. About two-thirds of
Belgium's coal exports go to West European countries, predominantly France, and about a tenth to the Mediterranean, mainly
Italy. Bunker loadings (foreign trade) are substantial in the coal
exports of both countries.
United States
Between 80 and 85 per cent, of the total coal shipments from
the United States are taken by Canada and over 4 per cent, by
various Latin-American countries, particularly Cuba and Mexico.
The remainder consists of bunker coal (foreign trade) and of an
insignificant fraction shipped as cargo to Mediterranean markets.
South Africa
Bunker loadings make up more than half of the coal exports
from the Union of South Africa. Over one-fourth of the cargo
shipments go to Asiatic countries, mainly Ceylon, the Netherlands
East Indies and the Straits Settlements; the remainder goes to
African markets such as Portuguese East Africa and the Sudan.
— 133 —
China (Manchuria)
Exports of coal from Manchuria go exclusively to Far Eastern
countries, including other parts of China as well. Japan alone
absorbs three-fifths of the total. Bunker loadings account for
one-fifth of the total shipments.
Miscellaneous Exporters
Almost the whole of Czechoslovakia's coal exports goes to
the Central European market, Germany and Austria taking about
equal shares of the total. The Mediterranean countries, mainly
Italy, together with the Balkan-Danubian countries, buy the bulk
of the coal shipments from the Soviet Union. Over 65 per cent.
of France's exports go to Central European markets of which
Switzerland is the largest.
Details of the shipments from other coal-exporting countries,
which cannot be presented here, would serve only to confirm the
general findings suggested by the above analysis; namely, that the
movements of coal in world trade tend to follow the lines of least
resistance as defined by access to cheap water transport over
ocean, lakes and canals, on the one hand, or by railway networks
on the other, where freight rate schedules are appropriate.
Distribution of Coal Imports
The distribution of coal imports into the major importing markets
is given in table XIV.
West European Market
Lying within easy reach of the British coal ports, particularly
those of South Wales and the Tyneside, and of the Ruhr
and Saar mines in Germany, the West European market
satisfies the greater part of its import requirements from these
two major sources. About 45 per cent, of the imports in 1936
were supplied by Germany and about 30 per cent, by Great Britain.
Belgium furnished over 10 per cent, of the total, the Netherlands
over 7 per cent. Small shipments from Poland and France made
up the balance.
So far as individual members of this group of countries are
concerned, over one-third of France's coal imports come from
Germany, a little less than one-third from Great Britain. The
balance is supplied by Belgium and the Netherlands. Germany
furnishes about 70 per cent, of the coal imports taken by the
— 134 —
TABLE XIV. —
DISTRIBUTION
OF I M P O R T S O F COAL A N D
ITS
(Coke, lignite and briquettes
Imports into:
I m p o r t s from (in percentage
Germany
Market
Great Britain
1934 1935
West European, of which:
TTranrp/with Saar (1934)
Without With Saar
Saar
Poland
1936 1934 1935 1936 1934
1935
29.8
1 38.2
^•"^wittioutsaarogas-igse)/ 20.5
Netherlands
9.2
Belgium
44.7
Ireland
5.9.«
North European, of which:
40.4
Sweden
75.2
68.2
Denmark
68.7
Norway
Finland
20.1
Central European, of which:
Germany:
40.5
w i t h o u t Saar (1934)
1
with Saar (1935, 1936) / •
11.3
Switzerland
Austria
Czechoslovakia
49.8
Mediterranean, of which:
36.4
Italy . . .
94.9
Spain . . .
76.5
Egypt . . .
93.2
Portugal . .
31.3
34.8
20.2
6.8
92.8
59.0
36.5
76.9
65.7
74.8
29.5
31.5
19.6
5.0
99.6
56.3
34.3
75.5
58.5
73.0
23.6
24.6
53.7
8.6
56.2
40.5
23.8
94.3
75.8
91.4
South East European
29.9
. , .
North American, of which:
Canada
United States
Latin American, of which:
Argentina
Brazil
Cuba, Mexico, Central America,
Indies
Asiatic and Oceanic, of which:
Japan
African
National totals (g) (million metric
tons) I m p o r t s from, i n t o :
Bunker loadings (foreign trade) :
I n transit (undeterminable) . .
B u n k e r coal (foreign trade)
shipped as cargo
Total
42.0
29.3
68.6
59.3
21.0
44.9
36.5
69.4
69.9
13.1
18.0
12.3
3.4
8.9
19.6
44.0
34.0
70.8
67.4
3.0
14.3
18.9
15.1
5.2
6.0
28.2
42.8
12.0
75.5
58.5
19.2
84.4
59.4
24.7
94.9
31.2
0.7
95.3
71.0
91.6
28.1
39.0
4.4
11.8
4.9
37.1
51.1
4.8
15.2
6.0
25.4
22.5
18.5
15.6
13.4
39.0
15.3
13.4
26.2
12.1
10.4
23.7
0.7
0.5
4.5
70.4
80.8
61.4
65.2
81.6
44.0
60.1
70.6
45.4
7.9
11.4
5.6
30.1
29.0
27.7
17.3
20.2
20.0
9.6
7.7
30.7
5.9
4.2
3.7
4.9
31.4
19.4
32.4
8.7
15.0
15.4
Netherlands
1936 1934 1935 1936
3.4
4.8
1.8
1.8
19.2
•32.7
7.4
15.8
15.1
17.4
31.2
4.3
13.9
13.5
3.7
4.7
2.2
3.3
4.8
6.9
11.3
10.3
0.9
2.6
35.9
22.9
0.0
2.7
33.7
13.4
3.4
29.0
2.2
45.7
70.8
4.7
22.8
6.3
7.7
10.1
7.6
10.7
7.1
11.2
2.4
3.1
4.6
30.5
53.3
9.6
2.4
1.5
14.1
7.7
7.2
13.5
2.4
2.4
3.4
7.7
7.3
13.6
0.6
1.1
8.5
7.8
3.5
4.8
1.6
1.3
4.1
19.6
2.6
21.2
10.0
1.4
2.1
8.4
7.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.3
2.4
4.3
0.0
19.7
2.3
4.3
0.0
4.7
0.0
0.3
2.2
2.7
2.5
37.6
44.9
49.8
39.0
13.7
5.0
39.0
12.7
4.4
35.4
12.1
3.4
27.4
0.1
4.6
32.6
0.2
4.8
33.8
0.2
6.2
9.0
0.5
0.9
8.1
0.6
0.6
57.7
56.1
50.9
32.1
37.6
40.2
10.4
9.3
7.2
0.6
1.0
6.1
0.4
0.1
6.6
(a) No imports by Asiatic-Oceanic and African markets. Of imports totalling 3.1, 2.8 and 2.9 million
metric tons, " in transit " were 0.0, 0.1, 0.15; no b u n k e r loadings. — (b) Also small imports by Mediterranean
m a r k e t (almost all Italy) equal to 2.9, 1.5, 0.3 per cent, of such imports. Of imports totalling 3.6,1.7 and 1.35
million metric tons, " i n transit " were 0.2, 0.1, 0.3; bunker loadings negligible. — (c) Also small imports, of
negligible percentage importance, by W e s t E u r o p e a n , North E u r o p e a n , Central European and Asiatic m a r k e t s .
Of imports totalling 2.2, 2.2, 1.9 million metric tons, " i n transit " and/or bunker loadings were 0.5, 0.7, 0.5. —
(d) I n normal years, no imports by markets other t h a n those shown. — (e) In normal years, no imports by
— 135 —
PRODUCTS, MAJOR
IMPORTING
COUNTRIES,
1934-1936
converted into equivalent coal units)
of national Imports)
National totals (/)
Belgium
United States
Czechoslovakia
(a)
France (6)
Per cent.
1934 1935 1936 1934 1935 1936 1934 1935 1936 1934 1935 1936 1934
11.4
18.4
7.1
11.3
17.2
7.1
11.1
17.2
6.6
0.0
0.0
1.0
3.5
1.4
3.1
1.9
4.2
2.1
1.7
2.9
1.5
1.0
1.0
0.1
19.1
18.2
1.7
3.9
1.5
2.0
1.4
1.9
0.3
13.3
13.5
0.0
0.0
5.9
9.3
2.0
2.0
0.2
0.3
0.0
0.2
0.3
1.0
0.5
7.4
43.8
14.1
77.9
84.0
75.4
83.9
72.8
81.1
11.6
1.5
8.0
10.9
0.5
4.9
11.2
0.5
5.0
70.0
72.0
Union of South
Africa (d)
9.7
8.7
5.0
9.8
55.0
46.0
39.0
1934
1935
1936
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
JOO.O
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
JOO.O
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
37.8
20.5
37.2
21.6
6.7
7.8
2.4
6.0
7.0
2.3
39.3
23.1
5.8
7.4
2.5
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
JOO.O
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
JOO.O
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
J«.O
7.2
5.6
2.8
1.4
JO
7.6
5.9
2.9
1.3
2 7.0
8.4
6.4
3.3
1.8
200.0
JOO.O
15.7
14.9
14.7
100.0
100.0 100.0
100.0 100.0
100.0 100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
6.7
6.0
3.4
3.1
1.5
3.4
3.0
1.5
5.9
3.5
3.0
1.4
JOO.O
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
JOO.O
100.0
100.0
100.0
19.2
13.1
1.2
14.2
8.5
1.2
1.1
1.1
100.0
«.0
100.0
22.3
28.5
7.7
17.8
5.5
16.1
100.0
JOO.O
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
28.2
22.2
22.5
JOO.O JOO.O JOO.O
1.1
1.2
2J.9
14.9
1.2
1.7
1.2
1.4
2.0
2.6
2.6
37.0
33.0
31.5
100.0 100.0 JOO.O
100.0 100.0 100.0
100.0 100.0 100.0
14.8
13.7
0.8
13.9
12.4
1.1
14.7
13.2
1.2
JOO.O JOO.O JOO.O
100.0 100.0 100.0
100.0 100.0 100.0
4.8
2.7
1.1
5.1
2.7
1.4
5.2
2.9
1.9
100.0 100.0
100.0
0.6
0.6
0.6
JOO.O 100.0 JOO.O
100.0 100.0 100.0
JOO.O JOO.O JOO.O
7.9
4.1
0.5
7.4
4.1
0.6
7.4
4.2
0.8
8.0
1.5
0.2
16.9
1936
7.1
U.S.S.R. (c)
3.3
3.0
3.7
5.8
3.7
4.7
2.8
1935
15.6
43.6
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.0
1.7
0.0
0.0
45.4
2.3
3.0
0.3
0.0
2.0
3.2
1.6
1.0
1.1
0.6
0.0
Million metric tons
5.9
1.2
China
(Manchuria) (e)
48.5 50.2 42.3
67.7 66.4 54.2
1.3
100:0
1.3
World totals (9)
5.2
0.3
0.0
5.3
0.4
0.3
6.1
0.4
0.4
12.1
1.2
0.1
11.1
1.4
0.0
11.4
1.5
0.6
0.8
0.9
0.2
0.9
1.1
0.2
6.9
13.4
12.5
13.5
1.9
2.2
0.9
1.2
0.2
3.8
0.6
3.6
0.7
3.0
0.8
2.3
4.4
4.3
3.8
119.9
21.7
121.3 118.5
21.3 21.4
6.3
5.5
7.9
markets other than those shown. I m p o r t s plus bunker loadings as recorded somewhat exceeded exports including bunker loadings as recorded. — (/) Including imports from other countries. — (9) Including imports into
other countries.
SOURCES: Computed from Statistische Uebersicht, 1936-37; LEAGUE OF N A T I O N S : International
1934, 1935, 1936; national t r a d e returns.
Trade
Statistics,
— 136 —
Netherlands and by Belgium. Great Britain provides practically
all of Ireland's coal supply.
North European Market
Thanks to cheap water transportation, the North European
market can obtain coal readily from all of the great suppliers.
Almost 60 per cent, of the total imports come from Great Britain.
Germany and Poland each furnish more than 17 per cent, of the
total. The remainder is supplied by the Netherlands (5 per cent.)
and Belgium (2 per cent.).
Sweden receives over one-third of its coal from Great Britain,
about one-third from Poland, and one-fifth from Germany. Great
Britain, with three-quarters of the total, and Germany with onefifth supply almost the whole of the coal shipments to Denmark.
Great Britain is predominant as a source of coal supplies to Norway
and to Finland.
Central European Market
There are three main sources of supply for this market: Germany,
Great Britain and Czechoslovakia. The Netherlands and Poland
are also important. Germany obtains over half of its coal imports
from Great Britain, and most of the remainder from the Netherlands
and Czechoslovakia. Switzerland takes about three-fifths of its coal
from Germany and the rest mainly from France, the Netherlands
and Great Britain. Czechoslovakia, Poland and Germany supply
almost all of Austria's coal imports, Germany alone almost all
the coal imports of Czechoslovakia.
Mediterranean Countries
The sharp changes in the structure of the Mediterranean coal
market between 1934 and 1936 were mainly due to the Ethiopian
conflict, League sanctions, and Italy's closer commercial ties
with Germany. Germany and Great Britain together supply over
three-quarters of this market's total imports; Poland, Belgium,
and the Soviet Union contribute most of the remainder. With
over seven-tenths of the total, Germany was in 1936 the principal
source of coal supplies to Italy; Poland came next with over onetenth ; imports from Great Britain had virtually disappeared x.
On the other hand, Spain obtained 95 per cent, of its coal from
Great Britain, Portugal 92 per cent, and Egypt 72 per cent.
1
In 1937 imports from Great Britain rose to over 2.2 million tons (as
compared with 0.1 million in 1936). Goal imports from Germany and Poland
also increased.
— 137 —
North American
Market
The coal import requirements of this market are furnished to
the extent of 73 to 76 per cent, by the United States. Great
Britain with from 12 to 16 per cent, is the only other supplier
of significance. Canada obtains over four-fifths of its coal from
the United States and most of the rest from Great Britain. The
United States receives about one-third of its coal shipments from
the Soviet Union and nearly one-fourth from Great Britain.
Latin-American
Market
Supplying between 60 and 70 per cent, of the total, Great Britain
predominates in the coal imports of Latin America. The United
States, Germany, the Netherlands and Poland also furnish appreciable portions of the aggregate supply.
Asiatic-Far
Eastern
Market
China, including Manchuria, supplies about one-half of this
market's coal requirements. Japan and the Union of South
Africa also figure conspicuously as suppliers.
Minor Markets
Great Britain and the Union of South Africa, in fairly equal
proportions, supply over 90 per cent, of the coal imports of Africa;
the remainder comes from Belgium. Germany, the Soviet Union
and Great Britain are the major furnishers of coal to the BalkanDanubian countries; Poland and Czechoslovakia also supply
appreciable quotas. Almost all of the imports of the Oceanic
group originate in Australia.
Summary
To conclude, coal tends to move only limited distances in world
trade except where facilities for water transport are particularly
favourable. All of the coal import markets tend to take the
great bulk of their shipments from sources of supply which have the
advantage of cheaper transportation.
The Main Channels of the World Coal Trade
The general network of trading relationships which grow out of
export and import shipments of coal and its products is presented
in table X V 1 .
1
This table prepared by the Office would seem to be the first attempt to
present a general picture of the structure of the world trade in coal and its
products.
TABLE
XV.
Percentage
TOTAL S T R U C T U R E
of Total
Coal Trade
(by
OF
Volume)
WORLD
transacted
(Coke, lignite a n d b r i q u e t t e s c o n v e r t e d
I m p o r t s into:
Germany
Market
Great Britain
1934 | 1935 | 1936
Without
Saar
Poland
Netherlands
1934 I 1935 | 1936
1934 | 1935 | 1936
W i t h Saar
1934 | 1935 ! 1936
West
European of
which:
France:
with Saar, 1934
without Saar,
1935, 1936
Netherlands. .
Belgium . . .
Ireland . . . .
7.5 d
7.8 d
7.8 d 10.5
5.3
5.0
4.9
1.0
0.5
0.7
0.8
0.3
1.4
0.8
0.2
1.7
North European,
which :
Sweden
Denmark . .
Norway
. .
Finland
. .
7.2
1.9
2.9
1.2
0.7
7.5
1.9
3.1
1.3
0.7
8.0
2.0
3.3
1.3
0.9
2.1
2.3
2.4
1.9
2.2
2.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
1.0
0.3
0.7
1.3
0.4
0.9
Mediterranean,
of
which:
Italy
Spain
Egypt
Portugal
. . . .
South-east European
6.5
3.1
0.0
0.7
0.7
5.9
2.4
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.2
0.2
3.0
0.03
0.8
0.5
0.6
0.1
3.6
3.4
0.04
0.1
0.04
0.1
5.4
5.1
0.05
0.2
0.05
0.3
North American, of
which :
Canada
United States . .
1.5
1.2
0.2
1.4
1.1
0.2
1.2
1.0
0.1
0.1
0.04
0.02
2.3
1.5
0.5
2.2
1.5
0.4
2.1
1.4
0.4
0.3
0.22
0.04
11.0
12.0
1.5
0.85
0.9
4.1
4.9
5.7
0.6
0.7
0.8
3.1
3.1
0.3
2.8
3.2
0.1
2.7
3.5
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.09
1.6
0.9
0.5
0.1
0.1
1.8
1.0
0.6
0.1
0.04
2.4
1.1
0.9
0.2
0.1
2.4
1.6
0.3
0.3
0.1
2.4
1.7
0.3
0.3
0.1
2.5
1.8
0.2
0.3
0.2
1.1
1.0
0.05
of
. .
. .
. .
Central
European,
of which:
Germany :
without Saar,
aar, 1
1934
with Saar, 1935,1
1936
Switzerland
Austria . . . .
Czechoslovakia
Latin American of
which:
Argentina. . . .
Brazil
Cuba, Mexico, Caribbean, West
Indies
. . . .
0.9
2.8
0.00
0.06
0.7
0.2
0.06
0.7
0.1
0.08
0.6
0.02
0.2
1.0
0.9
1.1
1.1
0.7
0.65
0.2
0.2
0.02
0.04
0.04
0.5
0.08
0.08
0.06
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.3
0.13
0.13
0.3
0.15
0.15
0.02
0.02
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.7
0.1
1.4
0.5
0.9
4.1
0.03
0.2
0.05
0.01
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
African
. . .
0.1
0.2
0.2
Oceanic
. . .
0.00
0.00
0.03
9.3
8.6
8.2
0.1
0.2
2.0
1.4
1.3
3.1
3.2
4.2
0.6
38.S
37.6
•34.4
21.6
25.2
27.2
7.0
6.2
57.7
56.1
50.9
32.1
37.6
40.2
10.4
9.3
Total (per cent.)
Total
(million
metric t o n s ) .
1.0
0.04
Asiatic-Far
East,
of which:
Japan . . .
Bunker
loadings
(foreign trade)
In transit (undeterminable)
Bunker fuel (foreign
trade) shipped as
cargo
0.5
0.3
0.1
0.06
0.05
0.03
6.6
(a) Excludingsmall " in transit " s h i p m e n t s . — (ò) Excluding appreciable shipments to the Mediterranean,
small " in transit " shipments, and negligible bunker loadings. — (c) Including shipments from countries other
t h a n those shown. — (d) Including shipments to t h e Channel Islands. — (e) Excluding appreciable " in
S O U R C E S : Tables X I I I and X I V .
T R A D E IN
between
COAL A N D ITS P R O D U C T S ,
Selected
Exporting
and Importing
1934-1936
Countries
into e q u i v a l e n t coal units)
F r a n c e (b)
Belgium
United States
Czechoslovakia (a)
1934 | 1935 | 1936
1934 | 1935 | 1936
1934 | 1935 | 1936
2.9
0.00
2.8
2.55
2.5
2.7
0.3
0.3
0.3
With W i t h o u t Saar
Saar
1934
0.3
0.24
0.02
0.04
0.1
0.1
0.01
2.1
1.«
0.1
0.06
0.06
0.01
0.9
0.9
0.1
0.04
0.04
1.0
0.8
0.02
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.1
0.04
0.06
0.6
0.54
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.1
25.5
25.0
26.6
13.8
14.5
15.6
4.5
5.2
1.6
1.0
4.7
1.5
3.9
5.0
1.7
12.1
4.8
3.8
1.9
1.0
12.7
5.1
3.9
1.9
0.9
14.2
5.7
4.3
2.2
1.2
10.6
10.0
10.0
7.0
7.0
0.4
0.03
0.06
0.4
0.4
0.01
0.04
0.01
0.05
0.3
0.3
0.3
7.3
7.3
1.0
1.0
0.3
0.2
4.5
4.0
4.0
0.6
0.4
0.4
2.3
2.1
1.0
2.3
2.0
1.0
2.4
2.0
0.9
12.9
8.8
0.8
0.9
0.7
5.7
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.«
14.7
10.0
0.8
1.1
0.8
0.9
10.0
9.2
0.6
9.3
8.3
0.7
10.0
8.9
0.8
3.2
1.8
0.7
3.4
1.8
0.9
3.5
2.0
0.9
0.4
0.4
0.4
5.2
2.8
5.0
2.8
5.0
2.8
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.1
14.6
14.3
0.07
0.07
0.01
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.03
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.1
Union of South Africa
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.00
0.2
0.04
0.1
U.S.S.R. (e)
0.5
0.,35
0.4
0.42
0.34
0.37
0.02
0.02
7.7
7.7
0.1
0.8
0.02
0.00
0.02
0.03
0.03
1.9
0.01
0.15
0.02
0.13
1934 | 1935 | 1936
0.00
0.2
0.15
0.2
0.16
0.06
1935 | 1936
0.00
0.3
0.2
National totals (c)
China (Manchuria)
2.6
2.5
2.1
1.8
1.5
1.9
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.«
0.7
0.9
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.03
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.00
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.J
0.00
0.00
0.00
i.li
3.7
4.0
4.7
9.0
8.4
9.1
1.3
1.5
J.fi
3.0
2.9
100.0
5.5
6.0
6.9
13.4
12.5
13.5
1.9
2.2
2.3
4.4
4.3
148.6
4.2f
0.7
5.3f
100.0
100.0
148.9
147.8
transit " shipments, small shipments to West European and negligible shipments to Central European
countries. — (/) These totals are less t h a n the sum of the countries shown because t h e negative " in t r a n s i t "
balances of China (Manchuria) and other countries are not separately shown.
For other explanatory notes, see tables X I I I and X I V .
— 140 —
It may be seen from table XV that the largest share of the
world's coal trade falls to Western Europe (about 27 per cent.
of world shipments by volume). The most important contribution to this market is furnished by Germany—12 per cent, of the
world quantum; this is the largest coal tonnage supplied by any
single exporting country to any one importing market. In the
main, the coal trade in Western Europe is made up of two movements: (1) of exports from Germany and Great Britain to fill
the deficiencies of France in particular types of coal; and (2) of
complementary shipments of coal among Belgium, the Netherlands,
France and Germany.
To consider individual transactions, the first rank is taken by
imports from Germany into France, followed by British shipments
to the same country. Considerable importance also attaches to
sales of coal by Germany to Belgium and the Netherlands, and
vice versa, to those by Belgium to France, as well as to those by
Great Britain to Ireland. Imports of Polish coal are a minor
factor in all of the countries of this market.
The second heaviest movement in the world coal trade, covering
from ,14 to 15 per cent, of the total, is the furnishing, at the
home ports of coal-mining countries, of bunker coal to steamships
engaged in foreign trade. To this movement, the predominant
contribution is that of Great Britain, equalling from 8 to 9 per
cent, of the world quantum; of secondary importance are the
contributions of the United States and of the Union of South
Africa. If, however, allowance is made for bunker fuel (foreign
trade) shipped as cargo, the total supply of fuel to vessels in
foreign trade would probably come to a fifth of the world's coal
trade, while the quota of Great Britain might rise to about 10
per cent, and that of Germany to between 4 and 5 per cent.
The Scandinavian-Baltic countries comprise the next largest
market in the international coal trade (14 per cent, of the world
trade). This market consists of countries coal-poor to which flows
the coal of countries coal-rich—above all, of Great Britain (8 per
cent.). Of considerable importance also are the imports from
Poland and Germany (approximately 2.5 per cent, from each).
Within this market, the heaviest volumes are those of British
shipments to Denmark and to Sweden. Large volumes are also
involved in Poland's exports to Sweden, in Germany's to the
same country, and in Great Britain's to Norway.
International coal transfers involving the North American, the
Central European and the Mediterranean markets are of approxi-
— 141 —
mately equal size—one-tenth of the world total of such transfers
in each case. So far as North America is concerned, the movement
consists predominantly in shipments from the United States to
Canada; these cover more than 7 per cent, of the world trade in
coal and thus are the largest transaction between a single exporting
and a single importing country. For the rest, British exports to
Canada amount to about 1 per cent, of the world total. As
regards Central Europe, the largest share of the total trade is
contributed by Great Britain's exports to Germany (2.2 per cent.).
Also of substantial weight are supplies furnished by Germany to
Switzerland and Czechoslovakia, by the Netherlands to Germany,
and by Czechoslovakia to Germany and Austria. With reference
to the Mediterranean market, finally, the biggest share is composed
of exports of German coal to Italy (over 4 per cent.). Supplies
from all sources, including Great Britain, Poland, Belgium and the
Soviet Union to Italy, and from Great Britain to Spain, Portugal
and Egypt, are also important.
Significant shares of the world's trade in coal are attributable
to the Asiatic-Far Eastern markets (5 per cent.), and to those of
Latin America (3-4 per cent.). Much more than half of the coal
trade in Asiatic-Far Eastern countries consists of the movement
of coal from Manchuria to Japan (almost 3 per cent.). British
shipments to Argentina and Brazil together (1.8 per cent.) bulk
largest in the purchases of the Latin-American countries. The
remaining market movements are negligible.
All in all, the centre of the world's coal trade lies in West, North,
and Central Europe, practically the whole of the imports of these
countries originating internally. It is here that the competitive
shipments from Great Britain, Germany and Poland meet in keen
struggle for common markets, particularly those of France and
Sweden. It is here also that the interlacings of complementary
trade are most intricate and make of the coal resources of Germany,
France, the Netherlands and Belgium a sort of international network in which each country supplies coal, in larger or smaller
volume, to all. The Mediterranean region and Latin America are
other areas where competition between the great European suppliers
takes on considerable dimensions. As for the North American
and Asiatic-Far Eastern countries, these lie far outside the range
of effective competition among European suppliers, and do not
present for the time being very serious problems of competition
from the point of view of this Report.
— 142 —
IV.
THE CHANGING STRUCTURE OF THE WORLD COAL TRADE
Between the pre-war and post-war years on the one hand, and
between 1929 and 1936 on the other, the structure of the world
coal trade changed profoundly. Alterations occurred in the world
distribution of both exports and imports as a consequence of
which the network of trading relationships has been reshaped.
All these changes have taken place, it should be stressed, against
the background of a total volume of trade which expanded somewhat between 1909-1913 and 1925-1929, was almost the same in
1929 as in 1913, and fell heavily between 1929 and 1936.
Shifts in the Export Trade
The main shifts in the international distribution of coal exports
are summarised in table XVI.
The most striking feature disclosed by the table is the sharp
decline in Great Britain's absolute tonnage of, and percentage contribution to, world exports of coal and its products. In part, this
decline reflects a shrinkage of bunker loadings by vessels in foreign
trade re-fuelling at British ports 1, and is thus to be brought back
to the various factors—substitution of fuel oil as motive power,
application of the steam turbine to the merchant marine, arrested
quantum of world trade, etc.—which have combined to curtail
the world demand for bunker fuel 2 . Mainly, however, the decline
is the result of a dwindling of exports in the strict sense 3, and is
thus attributable to the heavily diminished purchases by many
markets—above all, by the Mediterranean, Germany and France,
as well as by the Succession States to the Austrian and Russian
Empires, South America and overseas countries—for a variety of
reasons: such as competition from other exporters (France, Italy),
the exploitation of home coal resources (U.S.S.R.), the development of water power (Sweden), the use of fuel oils (Latin America),
the fall in the demand for bunker coal (overseas markets). Save
for a few special cases such as Canada and Denmark, every
1
Such bunker loadings totalled over 21 million metric tons in 1913 ; averaged
close to 17 million tons from 1925 to 1929 (excluding 1926), was somewhat
more than 12 million tons in 1936 and fell below 12 million in 1937.
2
See Chapter V.
3
These totalled 77.9 million tons in 1913; averaged 58.3 million tons from
1925-1929 (excluding 1926); fell again to 38.7 million in 1936, and rose to
44 million tons in 1937.
— 143 —
TABLE XVI.
PERCENTAGES OF WORLD COAL EXPORTS, INCLUDING
BUNKER FUEL (FOREIGN TRADE) SUPPLIED BY SELECTED COUNTRIES,
PRE-WAR AND POST-WAR
(Lignite, coke and briquettes converted into equivalent coal units)
Country
1909-1913
Average
1913
Average
1925-1929
1929
1936
34.4
Great Britain
. . . .
50.0
39.6
48.3
34.7 (e)
Germany:
20.4
22.1
pre-war territory .
22.3 (e) (g) 21.0(g) 27.2(h)
post-war territory .
13.3
11.6
14.4
14.7 (e)
9.1
United States . . . .
.(a)
.(a)
6.7
6.3 (e)
6.0
Poland
4.4 (e)
2.8 *
3.1
4.5
4.7
Netherlands
3.9
3.4
2.7
2.6
4.7
Belgium
0.4
0.7
2.0
3.5
2.0
IChina
(b)
(2.6)
(b)
(b)
(b)
IA
|Manchuria
2.4
2.4
2.0
0.2
0.4
1.5
Czechoslovakia . . . .
1.8
1.6
0.6
0.0(d)
Union of South Africa
0.0(d)
0.3
1.3
U.S.S.R
• . .
1.2
0.9
France :
0.9
2.9
2.9
pre-war territory .
0.8
1^7
2.6
2.2
1Ì8
post-war territory .
0.7
0.8
0.4
1.5
1.0
Japan
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.0
Australia
3.0
2.7
India
0.9
1.0
1.4
0.8
1.7
Turkey
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Austria-Hungary . . .
100.0
Other countries (/) . .
Total (per cent.) . .
147.8
179.0
210.0
206.5
190.8
Total exports (million
metric tons)
. . .
* Estimated.
(a) Included under Germany, U.S.S.R. and Austria-Hungary.
(b) Not separately available.
(e) Included under Austria-Hungary.
(d) Russian Empire.
(e) If 1926 is excluded, because of British coal strike, then percentages for countries
most affected are: Great Britain, 39.5; Germany, 20.5; United States, 12.6 ; Poland, 6.0;
Netherlands, 4.2.
(/) The post-war coverage is considerably greater than the pre-war.
(a) Excluding the Saar.
(h) Including the Saar.
SOURCES: Computed from LEAGUE OF NATIONS: The Problem of the Coal Industry (1929)
and Statistische Uebersicht, 1936.
important market bought considerably less British coal in 1936
than in 1913. In many of these, 1936 levels were below those of
1929 as shown in the following table.
— 144 —
(In million metric tons)
Country
U.S.S.R. and Succession
States
South America
Germany
Sweden, Norway
. . . .
Netherlands, Belgium . .
France
Mediterranean (selected) .
Canada
Denmark
Africa, Asia
(a) E x p o r t figures.
(6) I m p o r t figures.
(c) In 1935, 8.7 million.
S O U R C E S : The Problem of the Coal Industry
1913 (a)
1929(6)
6.0
7.2
8.9
7.2
4.0
12.6
20.4
0.0
2.3
3.0
0.7
5.2
5.4
3.7
7.2
12.8
15.0
0.7
2.2
1.7
(1929),- Statistische
Uebersicht,
1930 (6)
2.1
3.0
3.3
4.8
1.5
7.3
4.2 (c)
1.4
4.8
0.7
1936.
Much of the ground lost by Great Britain as an exporter of
coal has been gained by Germany; this is the second major change
shown by table XVI. On the other hand, the absolute tonnage
of Germany's coal exports (except in the unusual conditions of
years like 1926 and 1937) has fallen somewhat below the prewar levels 1 . Leaving the effects of territorial losses out of account,
this fall is the result of the fact that expansion in the shipments of German coal and coke to such markets as Italy, the
Scandinavian countries and France was more than offset by
contraction of shipments to the Succession States of AustriaHungary and the Russian Empire, the Netherlands and Belgium
as shown in the following table.
(In million metric tons)
Country
Austria-Hungary and Succession States
Netherlands, Belgium . . . .
France
Switzerland
Italv
Russian Empire and Succession States
Sweden, Norway, Denmark .
South America
North America
(a) E x p o r t figures.
(b) I m p o r t figures.
(c) In 1935, 7.6 million.
SOURCES: The Problem of the Coal Industry
1913 (a)
1929(b)
13.7
15.3
6.7
2.7
1.3
3.5
16.0
10.7
1.8
5.7
3.5
0.6
0.2
0.4
3.4
0.2
0.0
—
(1929); Statistische
Uebersicht,
1936 (6)
2.7
9.2
8.4
2.1
6.1 (c)
0.4
3.3
0.4
0.4
1936.
1
Including bunker loadings (foreign trade), such shipments totalled 45.5
million metric tons in 1913, averaged 39.2 million in 1925-1929 (excluding
1926), fell from 45.1 million in 1929 to 40.2 million in 1936 but rose to
— 145 —
On the whole, therefore, the export structure of German coal
has shifted profoundly.
The emergence of Poland, a post-war State, as one of the major
furnishers of coal to world markets is a third outstanding change
shown by table XVI. Poland's rise to export status is not simply
a consequence of the establishment of a new national sovereignty
where there was once only a home market. Before the World
War, coal mined in East Upper Silesia was mainly consumed in
Germany and Austria-Hungary; but exports from East Upper
Silesia to Germany disappeared almost completely after 1925.
Poland's considerable shipments to-day go to satisfy the consumption requirements of oversea markets—largely Scandinavian, Italy
and France—which were never penetrated or barely touched by
coal from East Upper Silesia in the pre-war years.
In so far as other changes in market structure are revealed
by table XVI, it will suffice here to point out the fall in foreign
sales by the United States. As regards cases of expanded export
volume, note should be taken of the striking advances in the
tonnages shipped by such countries as the Soviet Union, the
Union of South Africa and the Netherlands.
Shifts in Coal Imports
Many causes have combined to bring about the profound changes
in the international distribution of coal imports which appear
when the trade structure of the pre-war years is compared with
that of the post-war years, or the structure of 1929 with that of
1936. Certain countries, formerly heavily dependent on imports
of coal, have succeeded in developing the domestic production of
this commodity; for example, the Netherlands and the Soviet
Union. Other countries, deficient in domestic fuel resources,
have developed industrially to such an extent as to expand their
total coal requirements: for example, Denmark, Norway and
Sweden. The practices of economic nationalism have clogged the
trade channels as between, for example, the Succession States of
Austria-Hungary. Exchange controls have modified the origin
and volume of coal imports, for example, in Central Europe and
South America. Replacement of coal by oil and/or water power
has taken place on a considerable scale in such importing markets,
53 million in 1937. In view, however, of the loss of East Upper Silesia,
Alsace-Lorraine and the Saar (until 1935), it would seem that on the basis
of equal territorial extent in both periods Germany's export tonnages hardly
changed between the pre-war and post-war years.
C:R. I.
10
— 146 —
for example, as Argentina and Switzerland. New importing
entities, for example, Ireland and the Belgian-Luxemburg Customs
Union, have come into being while old importing entities, such as
Austria-Hungary, have been dissolved.
The effect of these and other influences may be seen when the
data of table XVII are examined.
TABLE XVII.
PERCENTAGES OF WORLD IMPORTS OF COAL AND
ITS PRODUCTS INTO SELECTED COUNTRIES AND MARKETS, PRE-WAR
AND POST-WAR
(Lignite, coke and briquettes converted into equivalent coal units)
1913
1929
15.1
6.8
14.4
20.3 (c)
10.2
6.7
1.6
. . .
36.3
38.8 (c)
Scandinavian countries :
Denmark
Norway
Sweden
Total above
. . .
2.3
1.4
3.5
3.7
2.0
4.2
7.7
9.9
Western Europe:
France
Belgium
Netherlands
Ireland
Total above
Austro-Hungarian countries:
Austria
Hungary
Czechoslovakia . . . .
Yugoslavia
Poland (a)
Total above . . . .
—
—
—
—
Russian Empire countries:
U.S.S.R
Finland
.
Estonia
.
Lithuania
Latvia
Poland (a)
Total above . . . .
—
—
—
—
—
Mediterranean :
Italy
Spain
Portugal
Total above
. . . .
9.6
4.1
1.3
1.8
0.5
0.1
7.8
0.0
0.8
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.1
6.3
1.6
6.8
2.0
0.9
9.4
1.4
0.8
9.7
11.6
For footnotes, see p. 147.
._ 147 —
TABLE XVII (Cunt.).
AND
ITS PRODUCTS
— PERCENTAGES OF WORLD IMPORTS OF COAL
INTO
SELECTED
COUNTRIES
AND MARKETS,
PRE-WAR AND POST-WAR
(Lignite, coke a n d briquettes converted into equivalent coal units)
1929
1936
2.6
1.6
2.0
1.5
2.4
1.5
4.2
3.5
3.9
10.9
1.1
11.5
0.7
11.1
1.0
12.0
12.2
12.1
1913
South American :
Argentina
Brazil
Total above
North American :
Canada
Total above
Central Europe:
Germany
Switzerland
Total above
Japan
World total (including
other countries) . . .
5.2 (d)
2.3
5.2 (c)
3.1
12.0
7.5
8.3
2.5
2.0
3.7
100.0
100.0
100.0
9.8
2.2
(a) Half of Poland's post-war imports have been assigned to this group.
• (6) The 1935 total was 14.2, divided as follows: Italy, 12.3; Spain, 1.0; Portugal, 0.9.
(c) Including imports into the Saar.
id) Excluding imports into the Saar.
SOURCES: Computed from The Problem o) the Coal Industry (1929); Statistische Uebersichl,
1936.
Most striking is the radically curtailed magnitude of exports to
the markets of Austria-Hungary and the Russian Empire and to Germany. In 1913, Austria-Hungary imported one-tenth of the world
total; its Succession States, in contrast, imported only 8 per cent.
in 1929 and less than 5 per cent, in 1936 1. Even more strikingly,
where the Russian Empire took over 6 per cent, of the world's coal
imports in 1913, its Succession States, including the Soviet Union,
took under 2 per cent, in 1929 and less than 3 per cent, in 1936 2.
As for Germany, its proportional share of world coal imports has
almost halved, from just under 10 per cent, in 1913 to just over
5 per cent, in 1929 and 1936 3.
1
This percentage decline corresponded to a tonnage fall from 15.2 to
12.6 to 5.4 million metric t o n s .
2
These percentages should be compared with a tonnage contraction from
10.6 to 2.7 to 2.1 million metric tons.
3
T h e absolute tonnages involved are 15.5, 8.3 a n d 5.9 million metric t o n s .
— 148 —
A large part of the contraction in the imports of the two prewar Empires and Germany has been made up by the increases
—both relative and absolute—in the imports of three Scandinavian
countries (Sweden, Denmark, Norway). From less than 8 per cent.
of the world's coal imports in 1913, this group increased its imports
to almost 10 per cent, in 1929 and to over 15 per cent, in 1936 1.
In short, the outstanding characteristic of the change in coal
imports during the post-war years might be defined as a largescale shift from Central, Baltic and Eastern Europe to the
Scandinavian countries.
As for the critical market of Western Europe, its proportion of
the world's total coal imports remained fairly stable—within the
range of one-third to two-fifths of the world total. The constancy
of the combined total conceals, however, divergent movements in
the component parts. Despite a small fall in tonnage, France
raised its proportion considerably between 1913 and 1936, from
15 to 20 per cent.2 The share of the Netherlands fell heavily,
from over 14 to under 5 per cent.3 and that of Belgium more
moderately, from 6.8 to 6.2 per cent.4 The substantial post-war
imports of Ireland relate to a country whose purchases from
Great Britain were not counted as imports in 1913.
So far as other market changes are concerned, attention should
be given to the rising tendency of imports into Japan and Italy,
to the falling tendency of imports into Spain, to the small
percentage changes (involving diminished tonnages) for imports
into North America and Latin America, and to the fairly
uniform tonnages (with some percentage enlargement) in the case
of Switzerland.
Changes in the Network of Trading Relationships
Because of statistical difficulties caused by territorial shifts
since 1913, it would be impossible to undertake here a detailed
comparison of pre-war and post-war networks of the coal trade.
Only the most important changes in the different markets since
1925 and 1929 will be indicated in the analysis which follows.
1
As for the absolute tonnages imported, they expanded from 11.8 to 15.8
to 18.0 million metric tons.
2
The tonnages changed from 23.9 to 32.2 to 23.1 million metric tons.
3
Absolute amounts were 14.4, 10.6 and 5.8 million metric tons.
4
As for tonnages, from 9.2 to 12.8 to 7.4 million metric tons.
— 149 —
West European Market
The central feature of the changes in the coal trade of Western
Europe is the drastic decline of total coal imports from 50 million
tons in 1925 and 62 million tons in 1929, to 39 million tons in
1936. Comparing 1925 and 1936, both Germany and Great
Britain lost ground somewhat as suppliers to this market. Imports
of German coal fell from over 50 to under 45 per cent, of the total,
those of British coal from almost 33 to less than 30 per cent.
In contrast is the considerable rise in the proportion of import
requirements satisfied by shipments from Belgium and the Netherlands. Other noteworthy changes include the emergence of
Poland as an exporter on a fairly large scale, and the decline in
the small trade quota attributable to France 1. Details are shown
in table XVIII.
TABLE XVIII.
CHANGES IN THE WEST EUROPEAN COAL MARKET,
1925
Percentage of Imports
TO
1936 (a)
supplied
by Selected
Countries
(Lignite, coke and briquettes converted into equivalent coal units)
Country
1925
1929
1933
1936
Total imports (million metric
tons)
49.9
61.9
38.7
39.3
50.5
32.6
7.0
6.1
0.0
2.4
43.1
34.1
8.6
8.7
1.3
3.0
0.2
0.1
41.0
33.3
10.9
8.9
3.5
1.3
0.2
44.9
29.5
11.1
8.3
3.4
0.3
0.4
Germany (b)
Great Britain
Belgium
Netherlands
Poland
France (c)
U.S.S.R
United States
0.4
(a) Including imports into the Saar, 1925, 1929, 1933; excluding such imports, 1936.
(b) Excluding exports from the Saar, 1925, 1929, 1933, but not in 1936.
(c) Including exports from the Saar 1925, 1929, 1933, but not in 1936.
SOURCE: Computed from Statistische Uebersicht, 1936, supplemented by national trade
returns.
Scandinavian-Baltic Market
Alone among the great coal markets of the world, the North
European countries imported considerably more coal in 1936
(21 million tons) than in 1929 (18 million) or 1925 (13 million).
1
This was owing in p a r t to t h e transfer of the Saar from a Customs Union
w i t h France to German sovereignty in 1935.
— 150 —
Especially large were the increases of imports into this market
from Poland, Germany, and the Netherlands. Great Britain, on
the other hand, while increasing somewhat its total tonnage, lost
relatively: its trade quota declined from over 80 per cent, in 1925
to little more than 56 per cent, in 1936. Poland increased its
share of supply more than sevenfold (from 2.3 to 17.4 per cent.)
and the Netherlands (furnishing small absolute quantities) in the
same ratio. Germany has also come to occupy a larger place.
Belgium and the Soviet Union have emerged as import sources
during recent years. Details are given in table XIX.
TABLE XIX.
CHANGES IN THE SCANDINAVIAN-BALTIC
COAL MARKET, 1925 TO 1936
Percentage of Imports supplied by Selected Countries
(Lignite, coke and briquettes converted into equivalent coal units)
Country
1925
1929
1933
1936
Total imports (million metric
tons)
12.6
18.2
16.7
21.0
81.2
11.8
2.3
0.7
52.1
20.7
24.1
0.5
54.2
13.1
25.1
3.1
2.4
0.3
56.3
17.3
17.4
5.1
1.9
0.3
Great Britain
Germany
Poland
Netherlands
Belgium
U.S.S.R
0.0
SOURCE: Computed from Statistische Uebersicht, 1936, supplemented by national trade
returns.
Mediterranean Market
After recovering in 1935 (22 million tons) almost to the level
of 1929 (23 million) imports, shipments into the Mediterranean
market fell in 1936 (14 million) below even the level of 1925
(18 million). The dominant characteristic in this market is the
decline in Great Britain's share of the market from almost 70 per
cent, in 1925 and 60 per cent, in 1929 to less than a third in
1936. Germany's quota, on the other hand, almost doubled
between 1925 and 1929 (from 14 to 26 per cent.), and rose almost
as much between 1929 and 1936 (from 26 to 46 per cent.). Poland,
Belgium and the Soviet Union have also had a share in replacing
British coal imports into this market. Shipments from the United
States and France, in contrast, have fallen heavily. Details are
shown in table XX.
— 151 —
TABLE XX.
CHANGES IN THE MEDITERRANEAN COAL MARKET,
1925-1936
Percentages of Imports supplied by Selected Countries
(Lignite, coke and briquettes converted into equivalent coal units)
Country
1925
1929
1933
1936
Total imports (million metric
tons)
17.5
23.0
15.3
14.2
13.9
68.8
0.3
• 0.3
25.9
59.0
1.3
0.1
1.4
1.9
4.6
0.1
18.1
61.3
5.4
1.1
4.3
0.1
4.5
0.7
45.7
31.2
7.1
5.9
3.5
0.2
0.3
Germany
Great Britain
Poland
Belgium
U.S.S.R
United States
France
Netherlands
3.4
4.0
SOURCE: Computed from Statistische Uebersicht, 1936, supplemented by national trade
returns.
Central European Market
After rising from 21 million tons in 1925 to 25 million in 1929,
imports to this market fell to 15 million in 1936. Despite declines
in total tonnages shipped, both Great Britain and Germany have
TABLE XXI. — CHANGES IN THE CENTRAL EUROPEAN
COAL MARKET, 1925 TO 1936 (a)
Percentages of Imports supplied by Selected Countries
(Lignite, coke and briquettes converted into equivalent coal units)
Country
1925
1929
1933
1936
Total imports (million metric
tons)
20.6
24.7
14.7
14.7
14.5
17.2
17.4
1.7
34.0
11.5
1.1
20.7
19.5
20.2
4.5
22.0
10.7
0.7
21.3
18.1
18.5
12.1
11.3
15.3
1.5
30.7
24.6
18.8
11.7
6.9
6.0
1.0
Germany (b)
Great Britain
Czechoslovakia
Netherlands
Poland
France (c)
Belgium
(a)
(ö)
(c)
Excluding imports into the Saar, 1925, 1929, 1933; including such imports, 1936.
Excluding exports from the Saar, 1925, 1929, 1933; including such exports, 1936.
Including exports from the Saar, 1925, 1929, 1933, excluding such exports, 1936.
SOURCE: Computed from Statistische Uebersicht, 1936, supplemented by national trade
• returns.
— 152 —
increased their relative status as the major suppliers of imported
coal to Central Europe. The Netherlands show a remarkable
increase of shipments into this market, while Czechoslovakia's
important share has undergone little change. On the other hand,
there was a heavy fall in Poland's share from over a third to less
than 7 per cent, of the total, and a cutting of France's share
almost by half. Details are shown in table XXI.
South American Market
From the level of 6 million tons or more in 1925 and 1929,
South America's imports declined to less than 5 million tons
in 1936. The progressive disappearance of the once considerable
shipments of coal from the United States is the outstanding change
in this market. Without losing its leadership, Great Britain has
also fallen back in relative status. Germany, the Netherlands
and Poland are the countries which have gained ground. Details
are shown in table XXII.
TABLE XXII.
CHANGES IN THE SOUTH AMERICAN COAL MARKET,
1925 TO 1936
Percentage of Imports supplied by Selected Countries
(Lignite, coke and briquettes converted into equivalent coal units)
Country
Total imports (million metric
tons)
Great Britain
United States
Netherlands
Poland
Belgium
1925
1929
1933
1936
6.0
6.3
4.1
4.6
Ik.l
3.3
14.9
86.9
3.1
4.3
77.8
6.6
3.1
7.9
0.3
64.6
8.8
2.7
7.2
2.7
0.1
SOURCE: Computed from Statistische Uebersicht, 1936, supplemented by national trade
returns.
North American Market
From between 18 and 20 million tons in 1925 and 1929, imports
into the North American market declined to about 15 million in
1936. The principal changes are the diminished relative share of
tonnages supplied by the United States and Canada as well as
the relative increase of those supplied by Great Britain. Although
the Soviet Union and Germany have both made their appearance
— 153 —
as furnishers of measurable volumes, the quantities they ship
remain inconsiderable. Details are shown in table XXIII.
TABLE XXIII.
CHANGES IN THE NORTH AMERICAN COAL MARKET,
1925 TO 1936
Percentage of Imports supplied by Selected Countries
(Lignite, coke and briquettes converted into equivalent coal units)
Country
1925
1929
1933
1936
Total imports (million metric
tons)
17.8
19.9
12.3
14.7
6.1
1.1
3.8
0.1
0.0
0.1
75.5
18.8
1.7
1.9
0.9
0.1
0.0
72.8
12.1
2.6
2.1
2.1
0.2
0.1
United States
Great Britain
U.S.S.R
Canada
Germany
Belgium
Netherlands
. :
88.9
6.1
.
4.2
0.3
0.1
0.2
SOURCE: Computed from Statistische Uebersicht, 1936, supplemented by national trade
returns.
Asiatic—Far Eastern—Oceanic Market
Where imports averaged close to 9 million tons in 1925 and
1929, they came to between 7 and 8 million tons in 1936. The
TABLE XXIV.
CHANGES IN THE ASIATIC
FAR EASTERN
OCEANIC
COAL MARKETS, 1 9 2 5 TO 1 9 3 6
Percentage of Imports supplied by Selected Countries
(Lignite, coke and briquettes converted into equivalent coal units)
Country
1925
1929
1933
1936
Total imports (million metric
tons)
8.7
8.9
8.5
7.4
6.5
45.3
17.2
4.9
3.1
2.4
5.0
3.2
2.1
17.4
42.3
14.8
8.7
3.4
2.5
2.3
3.3
0.1
China (excluding Manchuria)
Manchuria
Japan
Union of South Africa . . .
Australia
Great Britain
India
Netherlands E a s t Indies . .
U.S.S.R
28.2(a)
(b)
34.1
12.3
8.3
5.4
2.7
4.3
1.7
33.2(a)
(b)
20.1
10.8
2.0
9.4
7.6
5.7
2.1
(a) Includes exports from Manchuria.
(6) Not separately available.
SOURCE: Computed from Statistische Uebersicht, 1936, and national trade statistics.
— 154 —
outstanding changes here are the decline in the share of imports
furnished by Japan with a rise in the share supplied by China
with Manchuria. The decrease in the shares of this market held
by Australia, South Africa and Great Britain is also noteworthy.
A summary is presented in table XXIV.
Other Markets
Because of the distinctly minor totals involved, the African, the
Caribbean, and the South East European markets maybe dismissed
briefly. Great Britain has been gaining ground at the expense of
the United States in the Caribbean; there is a slight tendency for
British and South African shipments to fall and for Belgian tonnages
to rise in the African countries; Germany and the Soviet Union
are replacing Great Britain as the major coal suppliers to the
Balkan and Danubian countries.
Summary
Comparing 1913 with 1936, the most important changes which
have taken place in the coal markets of the world are as follows:
(1) Due to the closing down, for reasons of commercial policy, of
its natural pre-war markets in Germany and Austria-Hungary, coal
from Polish Upper Silesia is now exported in considerable quantities
to the Scandinavian countries, the Mediterranean and France ; (2) the
Succession States to the Russian Empire, Italy, Germany and South
America have lost in relative importance as importers of British coal;
on the other hand, the Scandinavian countries, the Mediterranean
countries other than Italy, and Canada, have gained; while little
change has occurred in the Western European market as a whole;
(3) the Succession States to Austria-Hungary make up a small
fraction of Germany's export markets to-day, although AustriaHungary accounted for over one-third of the total in the pre-war
years; Germany's coal exports to Italy have increased in relative
importance almost thirteen times, and to France by twice; Germany
has also increased her exports to Latin America, while her exports
to Belgium and Switzerland have declined somewhat. (4) The
substantial European coal markets enjoyed by the United States
in the pre-war years have practically vanished.
The most striking changes in the network of the world coal
trade since 1925 are the gradual and large scale displacement of
Great Britain as a coal exporter by Germany, particularly in the
European markets, the emergence of Poland and the Netherlands
as significant suppliers of coal, largely at the expense of Great
— 155 —
Britain, and the important increase in volume of coal imports by
the Scandinavian-Baltic countries alone among the major markets.
As for the influences which have caused the changes in trading
networks during the period 1925-1936, in addition to the impact
of cyclical fluctuations, the following may be pointed out: (1) the
British coal stoppage of 1926 was an important contributory
factor to the permanent enlargement of the export markets of
Germany and Poland at the expense of Great Britain, particularly
in the Scandinavian and Mediterranean countries; (2) the reparations deliveries in kind, which were required of Germany until
1932, helped to bring about a permanent rise of Germany's status
as a coal exporter to France and Italy particularly; (3) the devaluation of the £ sterling and the creation of the " sterling bloc "
in 1931-1932 helped to relieve the competitive pressure from
which British coal exports had been suffering during the period
from 1924 to 1931; (4) the embargo imposed by Germany upon
Polish coal imports in 1925 forced the mine owners of East Upper
Silesia to seek alternative outlets for their export shipments, thus
intensifying competition with British and German coal ; (5) Germany
and Poland, suffering from the pressure of difficulties in obtaining
adequate supplies of foreign exchange after 1933, undertook drives
to increase their coal exports; (6) the application of sanctions
against Italy in 1936 redirected Italy's coal imports from Great
Britain to Germany; (7) last, but not least, the free import markets
of the prosperity years up to 1929-1930 were replaced in the course
of the great world depression by a multitude of preferential trading
agreements, barter arrangements, and cartel schemes among the
coal exporters 1 .
Owing to all these factors and also to the total shrinkage in
the demand for coal as shown in Chapter V, international competition among the various countries exporting coal became
increasingly intense. Heavy pressures were thus brought to bear
1
Preliminary returns for 1937 show a strong rise of shipments of coal,
coke and briquettes from the major exporting countries. German shipments
rose from 40 million metric tons in 1936 to some 53 million tons in 1937.
British exports increased from 51 million metric tons to some 56 million, or
excluding bunker loadings (foreign trade) from about 39 to about 44 million
tons (Iron and Coal Trades Review, 25 February 1938; Frankfurter Zeitung,
28 February 1938). Poland's exports of raw coal (including bunkers) expanded
sharply from 8 to 11 million metric tons; those of the United States (bituminous alone) from 11 million to 14 million (International Coal Trade, 31 March
1938). Other main developments of 1937 were: resumption of large shipments
by Great Britain to Italy; increase of French imports from all sources; a
particularly large advance in Germany's exports to France, Italy, Belgium
and the Netherlands.
— 156 —
against the well-being of the coal-mining industry, not only in
countries such as Great Britain, where the national quota of the
world trade in coal tended to diminish, but also in countries such
as Poland, where the national quota tended to increase. These
pressures and the efforts to meet them have affected competitive
ability in the world coal markets and have thus played a large
part in bringing into existence many national and international
schemes for regulating the coal trade. These developments and
their effects on the coal-mining industry are considered in the
following three chapters. It becomes imperative particularly to
consider the particular competitive advantages enjoyed by the
several countries which export coal to the world markets, as well
as the particular competitive disadvantages from which they suffer.
The analysis of such advantages and disadvantages is the principal
theme of Chapter VII.
CHAPTER VII
FACTORS Di THE COMPETITION POR COAL MARKETS
The present structure of the world coal market as well as the recent
changes in the trading relations of individual coal-exporting and
coal-importing countries, as described in Chapter VI, are the
outcome of a complex process in which competition and combination, natural conditions and special policies, accidental events and
long- run tendencies have played and continue to play a varying part.
Reference has already been made in preceding chapters to some of
the historic influences, such as Reparation deliveries and the British
coal dispute of 1926, which have shaped this process. The purpose
of the present chapter is, first, to examine the main factors which
underlie the special advantages which countries and districts enjoy
or disadvantages from which they suffer in competition for coal
markets; and second, to describe the special policies which the
various coal-producing countries have adopted in recent years
either to make use of their advantages or to offset their disadvantages
and thus to improve their status in domestic and foreign coal
markets.
As shown in Chapter VI, though only one-tenth of the world's
coal trade by volume is international, exports and imports of
coal and its products are of much greater importance to the
national economies of certain countries, particularly the European.
Nevertheless, in all countries, inter-district competition within
the national economy is important not only because of its direct
effects on the domestic coal market, but also because of its
indirect effects on the foreign trade in coal. In most of the larger
coal-exporting countries, the bulk of the export coal is obtained
from a few special districts, so that in the world markets for coal,
export district is to a considerable extent pitted against export
district. In view of this, data will be presented in this chapter
on inter-district variations within separate countries, particularly
in so far as they serve to throw light on international competition.
In presenting the data on this phase of the situation, special
— 158 —
emphasis will be laid on the competitive relations of Germany,
Belgium, the United States, Great Britain, the Netherlands and
Poland.
Among the factors which govern competition in coal markets
considered in this chapter are: (1) deposits of special kinds and
grades of coal; (2) natural difficulties of mining; (3) cheap and
easy access to coal-consuming centres; (4) variations in labour
costs. Among the special policies examined in this chapter by which
the different countries have tried to improve their competitive
position in coal markets, are: (1) protection of the home market in
the interest of the national coal-mining industry; (2) commercial
organisation of the coal trade with a view to regulating competition on the home and foreign markets, and to maximising exports,
minimising imports, or both; (3) the granting of direct or indirect
subsidies in support of the coal export trade; (4) manipulation
of the value of the national currency in foreign exchange; and
(5) the making of preferential trade agreements and bartering
arrangements with specific bearing on coal and its products.
I. FACTORS OF COMPETITION
Not all of the factors involved in the competition for coal markets,
enumerated above, will be considered in the same detail, partly
because they are not all of the same importance, partly because
some of them are treated more fully elsewhere in this Report.
Special Kinds and Grades of Coal
The competitive advantages which certain countries or districts
enjoy, thanks to the possession of particular kinds or grades of
coal, may be dismissed briefly. As brought out in Chapters III
and IV, the various kinds and grades of coal are unequally distributed among the coal-mining countries as well as among the
coal-mining districts within countries 1 . The possession of a
particular kind or grade of coal is often equivalent to a complete
or semi-monopoly based on natural conditions.
1
For example, the localisation of anthracite deposits in South Wales,
Eastern Pennsylvania, Aachen, the Donetz Basin, etc.; the peculiar richness
of the Ruhr and of East Upper Silesia in coking coals as compared with the
poverty of France in such types; the abundance of gas-making coals in
Durham; the relative absence in Japan of bituminous coal of good coking
quality or of high thermal value; the superior calorific yield of lignite in
Czechoslovakia to lignite in Germany, etc.
— 159 —
How far the monopolistic powers which result can be exercised
effectively is, however, a complex question. Such powers are
seriously limited by the range within which the several kinds and
grades of coal can be substituted for one another as well as by
the range within which coal can be displaced by oil, natural gas
or water power 1.
Natural Difficulties of Mining
There is no convenient measure by which to compare the natural
difficulties of mining coal in particular countries or districts. The
nature of the factors involved is clear—e.g. the depth at which
coal must be mined, pitching and faulting of the seams, their thickness or thinness, the adaptability of the terrain for open-pit, drift
or slope mining, the hardness or softness of the coal to be worked,
presence of gas and water, the coal's freedom from certain physical
and chemical impurities, etc. Thickness of coal seams is one of the
most important conditions. Seams now mined in Europe, for
instance, range from a minimum of about twenty inches to a
maximum of well over six feet. Costs of production usually vary
inversely with the thickness of seams, at least until an optimum
thickness of five or six feet is reached. As the thickness increases
beyond six feet, the advantages diminish until a point is reached
where thickness often becomes a disadvantage.
Another specially important natural factor in underground mines
is the character of the roof above the coal seam. In some cases it is
firm and safe to work under; in other cases it may fall easily, thus
introducing serious hazards. In order to overcome bad roof conditions, adequate timber or rock work must be set up, which is not
only costly but also interferes with easy access to the coal face
for undercutting and loading, particularly by mechanical means.
In general, it is agreed that the collieries of the United
States, particularly the bituminous collieries, have to meet with a
minimum of natural mining difficulties. Seams are extraordinarily
thick, the average depth of shafts is unusually low, a considerable
part of the total lends itself to strip mining or to drift or slope
methods, etc. Roughly speaking, it is also agreed that the
natural difficulties of coal mining rise to a maximum in Belgium,
where coal has to be won from pitching beds as thin as 51 cm.
and at a depth sometimes approaching 1,219 metres. Between
1
See Chapters III and V.
— 160 —
these two extremes, it is generally agreed that the deposits
of Poland (East Upper Silesia), of the Netherlands, and of Germany
(particularly lignite) can be worked with relative ease, while those
of Czechoslovakia (excluding lignite), Great Britain and France
(Nord and Pas-de-Calais) with relative difficulty.
Each of the differences in the natural conditions of coal mining
has its specific effect upon the ease or difficulty with which coal
may be won. Taken together, they are the cause of wide variations
in the cost of mining coal. As an illustration of the variations
in costs elements due to these differences, the following comparisons
of total costs and their distribution whish are different districts
in France for 1935 may be of interest.
COSTS PER TON IN 1 9 3 5 BY MINING BASINS, FRANCE
(In French francs; average, all mines)
Misc. General
supplies expenses
Total
costs
6.78
7.10
11.29
9.35
14.67
17.11
67.65
84.93
5.77
7.30
15.85
74.10
Basin
Wage
cost
Explosives
Timber
Power
Strasbourg . . .
Saint Etienne .
Nord, Pas-deCalais . . . .
26.88
43.60
3.83
0.57
4.20
7.20
38.67
1.02
5.49
SOUBCE: FBANCE: "Enquête sur les conditions économiques et financières d'exploitation
des mines de combustible françaises ", Annales des Mines, 1937, p. 70.
Although most of the differences of production costs which are due
to variations in the natural difficulties of mining are unavoidable,
their effects can be modified to some extent by labour skill
and by methods of mining. The relationships between the items
of cost due to variations in natural conditions do not, moreover,
remain constant. The factors themselves change, or ways and
means are adopted to overcome natural obstacles. That coal mining
can be carried on under very wide variations in natural conditions
between countries and within each country is also partly owing to
the fact that differences in natural conditions may be offset by the
quality and character .of coal (reflected in varying price levels)
and by differences in distance from markets (reflected in varying
transportation costs).
Easy Access to Consuming Markets
As coal is a bulky commodity of low value per unit of volume,
transport costs play a particularly large part in determining the
— 161 —
competitive advantages and disadvantages of particular countries
and districts 1 .
At least three factors play a part in determining transport
costs: first, t h e length of the haul between t h e pithead and
the consuming centre; second, whether t h e haul is b y railway,
steamship, canal barge, motor lorry or any combination of these;
third, the manner in which the structure of freight charges within
a particular country m a y be devised so as to promote export
shipments, discourage imports, and apportion the home market
among the several mining districts.
To consider transport costs in detail would be too complicated
a task for the purposes of this Report. All that can be done is to
suggest certain broad generalisations which relate, moreover, to
foreign trade exclusively.
First, it is evident that Great Britain enjoys unusual natural
advantages of transport:
The coal fields of Great Britain are situated to the best possible
advantage for export trade. With the exception of a small part of
the Midland districts, all British coalfields are within easy access of the
sea; the average length of haul for export coal being no more than
25 miles. This compares with 50 miles in the case of the Belgian
1
The importance of transport costs is shown by the high ratio, in many
cases, of railroad freight charges to value of coal at the pithead. In the United
States, for example, the following relationships are to be found:
In U.S. dollars per short ton
1936
(1)
(2)
Average value, all bituminous coal, f.o.b. mines
Average railroad freight charges for hauling bituminous coal
Per cent., 2 of 1
U N I T E D STATES D E P A R T M E N T O F T H E I N T E R I O R :
Minerals
Year-Booh,
1.77
2.25
127.0
1937, p . 794.
As regards export coal from Great Britain, Germany and Poland, the
following relationships between pithead value and freight charges to tidewater
may be noted:
In U. S. dollars per long ton
1929
1934
Great Britain
(1) Cardiff: Average value a t pithead
3.50
3.44
(2) Freight charges to tidewater *
0.76
0.76
Per cent., 2 of 1
21.7
22.1
Germany
(1) Average value a t pithead
3.83
1.65
(2) Freight charges t o tidewater
0.97
0.73
Per cent., 2 of 1
25.3
44.3
Poland
(1) Average value a t pithead
2.33
1.33
(2) Freight charges t o tidewater
0.82
0.49
Per cent., 2 of 1
35.2
36.8
* I t would appear t h a t no allowance has been made here for the rebates paid on export
shipments of coal in accordance with t h e Derating Scheme of 1929.
J. R. B R A D L E Y : Competitive Conditions in the International
ment of t h e Interior, October 1936, p . 37.
C R . I.
Coal Trade, U. S. Depart11
— 162 —
coal fields, 35 to 70 miles in France, 100 to 150 miles in the case of the
Ruhr (although the development of internal water transport has
minimised the effect of distance from the sea in Germany), and 400 miles
in the case of Polish Upper Silesia1. . . . The natural advantages
of the British industry are such that under conditions of free competition it can land coal on the German North Sea Coast or the American
North Atlantic ports rather more cheaply than it can be supplied in
those places from the German or American mines 2.
The natural advantages of the British coalfields for the export
trade should not, however, be exaggerated. Thanks to a highly
developed interlacing of canals and rivers with the railway
networks, coal from the Ruhr district can be laid down at ports
in Germany (e.g. Emden), Belgium (e.g. Antwerp), and the
Netherlands (e.g. Rotterdam) for nearly the same transport
costs as British coal can be laid down at Newcastle or Cardiff.
Thanks to particularly favourable railway charges, coal from
Polish Upper Silesia can be brought to tidewater (at Gdynia or
Danzig) even more cheaply than coal from South Wales or the
Ruhr 3 .
Even more important, a considerable fraction of the European
coal trade does not call for transport by sea. Exports of Polish
coal to inland centres in Austria and Czechoslovakia are a case in
point; so are German shipments to Switzerland, the movement of
coking coal from the mines of the Ruhr to the iron and steel works
of Lorraine, as well as much of the complementary trade between
Belgium and the Netherlands, Germany and Czechoslovakia, etc.
1
Since these lines were written, the rail haul from East Upper Silesia to
the Baltic ports has been considerably shortened as a result of the construction
of several short-cuts. The present length of the haul from Katowice to
Danzig or Gdynia is somewhat more than 300 miles.
2
P.E.P. Report on the British Coal Industry, p. 152.
3
The freight charges per long ton to tidewater for Great Britain, Germany,
Poland and the United States in 1913 and 1934:
Freight charges ¡or bringing coal to tidewater in U.S. dollars per long ton
Country
1913
1934
Great Britain—•
to Newcastle.
0.43
0.75 (a)
„ Cardiff
'
0.41
0.76 (a)
Germany—
to North Sea ports
0.89
0.73
Poland—
to Gdynia or Danzig
•—
0.49
United States—
to Hampton Roads
1.50
2.42
„ Baltimore
1.43
2.50
(a) No allowance seems to have been made for rebates on export shipments under the
Derating Scheme of 1929.
SOURCE: J. R. BRADLEY: Competitive Conditions in the International Coal Trade, U.S.
Department of the Interior, October 1936, p. 37.
— 163 —
Second, the serious disadvantages of distance in the case of
coal exports from East Upper Silesia are offset to a considerable
extent by the cheap freight facilities made available by the railroads
of Poland. The bulk of Polish coal exports is destined to the
Scandinavian-Baltic, West European and Mediterranean markets,
and has to be hauled more than 300 miles by rail before reaching
the shipping points on the Baltic. It is hauled that distance
at the lowest ton-mile rates of any country \
Third, the great cost of bringing bituminous coal to tidewater
because of distance is one of the obstacles which block the
development of a large export trade from the United States to
Europe.
Price-Spreads and Labour Costs
Although labour costs generally run from two-fifths to
three-fourths of the total cost of obtaining coal at the pithead 2,
they are not necessarily the major element in governing the prices
at which coal shall sell in national and world markets. Aside from
other costs of mining, such as the wear and tear of machinery,
timber, supplies, etc., allowance has to be made for the processing
of raw coal where necessary, for the profit margins of the colliery
owners, for transportation, handling and delivery, for the working
margins of wholesale and retail distributors, for insurance, taxes, etc.,
and for such monopoly additions to price as may arise out of national
combinations or international arrangements. By the time all such
allowances have been made, the importance of labour costs at
the pithead upon the delivered price of coal may have become
quite moderate or even reduced to a minor factor of market price.
The available data are fragmentary. However, those which can
be obtained suggest that the spreads between mine price and delivered price of coal are often very wide. This is so, for instance,
in the case of bituminous coal in the United States, mainly
because of the very long railway hauls involved. As shown by
table I, the ratio of delivered price to average value at the pithead
in 1936 rose as high as 253 per cent, for coking coal delivered to
merchant by-product ovens, 260 per cent, for bunker fuel loaded by
foreign trade vessels, and 474 per cent, for retail sales of household
coals.
1
For further discussion, see pp. 185-186.
These figures apply to underground mines; in strip mining, labour costs
run from 30 to 40 per cent. For a discussion of the ratio of labour to total
costs in coal mining, see Chapter VIII.
2
— 164 —
TABLE I.
SPREAD BETWEEN PITHEAD AND DELIVERED
PRICES
OF BITUMINOUS COAL, UNITED STATES, 1 9 3 6
(Average price, U.S. dollars per s h o r t ton)
Price Indicators
Average value, all coal, f.o.b. mines
S p o t prices f.o.b. mines
Average cost of railroad fuel excluding freight
charges
Average value of e x p o r t coal to all countries, a t p o r t
Average cost of coking coal a t m e r c h a n t by-product
ovens
Average cost of b u n k e r coal to vessels in foreign
trade
Average retail price 38 cities
1936
$
1.77
1.99
1936
Index
numbers
100
112
1.89
3.62
107
204
4.48
253
4.60
8.40
260
474
SOURCE: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR: Minerais Year Book 1937, p. 794.
In Great Britain, also, there are considerable margins between
the value of coal at the pithead and its price to final consumers.
True, because of the much shorter rail hauls, price-spreads in
Great Britain are much narrower than in the United States,
particularly for deliveries of industrial steam coal. The available
data suggest that dealers in household coals pay about twice as
much for their deliveries as the collieries receive in average
proceeds and that mining costs make up about half of the total in
the sales price of metallurgical coke. This maybe seen from table II.
In France, during 1935, the proceeds received by collieries
averaged 80.10 francs per ton as compared with average mining
costs of 74.40 francs. The retail margins of dealers in household
coals for heating averaged 126.10 francs per ton in the city of
Paris and 97.30 francs in its suburbs. Retail margins in other
cities averaged: Marseilles, 77.30 francs; Orleans, 71.0; Nantes,
69.50; Strasburg, 69.20; Toulouse, 66.70; Lyons, 63.25; Bordeaux,
58.50 !.
Comparable data on price-spreads for other coal-producing
countries are not readily available, but certain generalisations may
be ventured with reference to the home markets of Germany and
Poland. The cartelised nature of the coal industry and trade in
both of these countries, together with the national policies of
promoting coal exports, makes it highly probable, in each case,
that the price spreads for home market deliveries are large. A
1
F R A N C E : " E n q u e t e sur les conditions économiques e t financières d'exploitation des mines de combustible f r a n ç a i s e s " , Annales des Mines, 1937,
p p . 19, 304.
— 165 —
certain amount of statistical evidence in support of this belief can
be found through the comparison of mine labour costs per ton and
the selling price of coal for home market deliveries, f.o.b. mine.
These data are summarised in table I I I ; it will be seen that t h e
margins between mine labour costs and selling prices at the pithead
are very much wider for Germany and Poland than in the case of
Great Britain.
TABLE I I . — SPREADS BETWEEN MINING COSTS AND MINE PROCEEDS
AND PRICES PAID FOR COAL AND COKE, GREAT BRITAIN 1 9 3 6
(In shillings and pence)
A
B
C
D
=
=
=
=
Wage costs per long ton, last quarter 1936.
Total mining costs per long ton, last quarter 1936.
Mine proceeds from sales, last quarter 1936.
Current prices, specified fuels, 5 November 1936.
Mining district
Lancashire, Cheshire and
North Staffordshire .
B
s.
d.
10.11 Vi
s.
d.
s.
d.
16. o y 4
17. 7 y 4
Yorkshire
9. 2
13. 2
14. 8 %
Scotland
8. 6 -
12. 5 %
14. 5 y 2
South Wales and Monmouthshire
9. 8
15. oy4
15. 9
Durham
8. 3i/ 2
1 3 . 2i/ 2
1 3 . 5i/ 2
Northumberland . . . .
1. 8
i2. 4y2
13. 3
30.
18.
14.
34.
16.
19.
16.
"37.
24.
,19.
25.
24.
15.
16.
13.
3(a)
9(6)
0 (c)
0(d)
3(e)
0(/)
6(g)
6(A)
9(i)
6(7)
6 (I)
6(m)
Of«)
6(o)
6(P)
* Household prices are those paid by coal dealers; prices for coke include the costs of
manufacturing coke.
(a) Best house, Lancashire. — (b) Best steam, Lancashire. — (c) Best slack, Lancashire. —
(d) Best house, Yorkshire. — (e) Best Ell, Glasgow. — (/) Best splint, Glasgow. — (a) Best
steam, Glasgow. —'(ft) Best anthracite, Swansea. — (t) Best furnace coke (ovens). South
Wales. — (j) Best steam, Cardiff. — (Í) Foundry coke, Newcastle, f.o.b. — (m) Furnace
coke, Middlesbrough, d/d. — (n) Best gas, Durham. — (o) Best steam, Northumberland. —
(p) Best smalls, Northumberland.
SOURCES: UNITED KINGDOM MINES DEPARTMENT: 16th Annual Report of the Secretary for
Mines, 1937, pp. 156-157; The Iron and Coal Trades Review, 5 November 1937, p. 762.
Finally, some price-spread data for Switzerland are shown in
figure 1. Here it is seen that the transportation charges for
delivering Ruhr or Saar coals to Swiss industrial consumers in
1934 amounted to well over 100 per cent, of t h e cost of such
coal at t h e tipples from which delivery began.
Despite t h e price-spreads indicated above, the ability to mine
coal at low labour costs is an important competitive advantage,
— 166 —
TABLE I I I .
SPREAD
BETWEEN
MINE
LABOUR
COSTS
( A ) AND
SELLING PRICES FOR HOME MARKET DELIVERIES ( B ) F.O.B. MINE,
GERMANY AND POLAND, 1 9 3 6
(1) Germany
District
(in Reichsmarks p e r metric ton)
1936
A
B(a)
Ruhr
4.19
14-19
Aachen
5.51
17-31
Saar
7.47
20.05-24.75
W e s t U p p e r Silesia . . .
5.72
15.25
W e s t Lower Silesia . . .
5.71
20.74
(2) Poland (in zloty per metric ton)
E a s t Upper Silesia . . . .
4.15
21.0-24.8 (b)
(a) The price range covered by representative varieties, or the price of one representative
variety.
(6) 1 April 1936.
SOURCE: Wage costs computed from Statistische Uebersicht, 1936; sales prices as given in
the same source.
FIGURE 1.
ELEMENTS IN THE PRICE OF RUHR AND SAAR COALS
AS DELIVERED AT SCHLIEREN, SWITZERLAND, 1 9 3 4
(In Swiss francs per metric tons)
Saar coal
Ruhr coal
Francs
Francs
Transportation
9.90
7.30
Schlieren
,
1 70
1
7.00
13.65
!
|
1
By rail
from
Reden
,
.
,,
Transportation to
Basel
,
,
By water
from
Duisburg
Pithead cost
—
1 70
9.00
14.25
Total
costs 32.25
32.25
SOURCE: W. HOTZ: Volkswirtschaftliche Gesichtspunkte bei der Versorgung der Schweiz mit
Kohlen und Heizöl, Schweizer Archiv für Angewandte Wissenschaft und Technik, Sept.
1935, p. 164.
the need, to mine it at high labour costs a corresponding disadvantage. First, in the case of some of the most important consumers
of coal, delivered price is almost identical with mining costs at the
pithead plus profit margins. This is true of railways and of the
industries located near coal mines in their purchase of steam and
coking coals 1. And second, the cost of coal at the pithead remains
1
For the importance of railways and the heavy industries as consumers
of coal, see Chapter III.
— 167 —
an appreciable factor in all final sales prices, for the magnitude
of the price-spread in marketing coal to final consumers depends
largely on the level of the original base.
It is important therefore, when analysing competitive advantages
and disadvantages, to consider the main elements which determine
variations in the level of labour costs in coal mining as between
countries and districts. Aside from differences of natural difficulties,
discussed above, variations in labour costs are due mainly to differences in productivity and in wage rates. These two factors will
be considered below.
Regional Differences in Labour Productivity
As shown in Chapters V and VIII, the output of coal per man-shift
varies widely among the several coal-mining countries. Considering
the several European and North American countries which are involved in the network of international competition, labour productivity is lowest by far in Belgium, highest by far in the United States.
In 1935, for example, bituminous-coal miners in the United States
obtained more than five times as much output per man-shift as the
coal miners in Belgium, more than four times as much as the French.
coal miners, more than three times as much as the British; the
labour productivity of the United States coal miners in that year
was three times as high as the level of man-output in Czechoslovakia,
more than twice as high as the levels of Germany (the Ruhr) or of
the Netherlands, and just double that of Poland (East Upper
Silesia). In summary, the productivity of colliery workers in the
several countries in 1935 was as follows:
OUTPUT PER MAN-SHIFT IN SELECTED COUNTRIES, 1935
(Belgium = 100)
Belgium
France
Great Britain
Czechoslovakia (bituminous). .
Germany (Ruhr)
Netherlands
Poland (East Upper Silesia). .
United States (bituminous) . .
SOUBCE: Computed from table XII, Chapter V.
100
112
153
172
220
232
261
525
Labour productivity varies also quite widely between the
individual mining districts of one and the same country. In
Great Britain during the last quarter of 1936, for example, output
per man-shift in South Wales and Monmouthshire was only 81 per
— 168 —
cent, of the corresponding level in Yorkshire. Colliery workers in
Scotland showed a higher output than those of Northumberland;
the latter obtained more coal per 'man-shift than did miners in
Durham. In detail, the following levels obtained among some of the
leading districts:
OUTPUT PER MAN-SHIFT, IN KILOGRAMS, SELECTED BRITISH MINING
DISTRICTS, LAST QUARTER 1 9 3 6 (ß)
District
Scotland
Northumberland
Durham
South Wales and
shire
Yorkshire
All Great Britain
(a)
1936
1,245
1,198
1,120
Monmouth1,097
1,353
1,207
These figures relate to about 96 per cent, of the total coal output.
SOURCE: Statistische Uebersicht, 1936, pp. 52-53.
In Germany, the regional variations of labour productivity
among coal miners are much wider than in Great Britain. Aside
from the extraordinarily high level of man-shift output in the
lignite strip pits of the Rhineland, the variations for deep
coal mines alone range from a low of 100 for Saxony
to a high of 235 for West Upper Silesia. Mine workers in the
Ruhr have about 80 per cent, more output than miners in the Saar;
man-shift output is about twice as high in West Upper Silesia as in
West Lower Silesia, etc. Details are as follows:
OUTPUT PER MAN-SHIFT IN KILOGRAMS, SELECTED MINING
DISTRICTS, GERMANY, 1 9 3 6
District
Coal :
Ruhr
Aachen
Saar
West Upper Silesia
West Lower Silesia
Saxony
'
Lignite (a) :
Rhineland (strip pits) . . . .
East of the Elbe (underground).
„ „ „
„ (strip pits) . .
Central Germany (underground)
(strip pits) . .
(a)
Converted at 9 tons of lignite = 2 tons of coal.
SOURCE: Statistische Uebersicht, 1936, pp. 41-42.
1936
1,710
1,178
951
1,896
996
807
6,307
646
2,913
1,008
2,825
— 169 —
In Poland, also, the level of productivity varies appreciably
among the three coal-mining basins. Man-shift output is highest in
East Upper Silesia, only 67 per cent, of that level in Cracow and
69 per cent, of it in Dombrowa. It should also be noted that workers
in the Polish mining districts of East Upper Silesia obtain considerably more coal per man-shift than their neighbours in the German
mines of West Upper Silesia. Details are as follows:
OUTPUT PER MAN-SHIFT IN KILOGRAMS, POLISH MINING
DISTRICTS, 1 9 3 6
District
E a s t U p p e r Silesia
Dombrowa
Cracow
SOURCE: Statistische Uebersicht, 1936, p. 82.
1936
2,073
1,349
1,384
The range of variability to be found in the United States is,
for bituminous coal, the greatest of all and far exceeds that of the
international averages. In 1935, for example, strip-pit miners
obtained an average of 58.05 short tons (almost 52,773 kg.) daily
in the State of Montana ; in the States of Georgia and North Carolina,
by way of extreme contrast, underground workers could raise no
more than 1.30 short tons (about 1,182 kg.) daily. The fact that
much of the output in Illinois and Indiana is won from strip-pit
mines explains why labour productivity in these two States is
so much higher than the levels which prevail in Kentucky, West
Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio. Details for some of the major
mining districts are given below:
OUTPUT PER MAN-SHIFT IN SHORT TONS, BITUMINOUS
COAL-MINING
DISTRICTS, UNITED STATES, 1 9 3 5
Underground
Strip pits
and
alone
strip pits
Alabama
2.79
2.75
Colorado
4.08
—
Illinois
5.97
12.65
Indiana
7.91
12.74
Kentucky
4.16
—
Ohio
4.44
9.70
Pennsylvania
4.10
4.95
W e s t "Virginia
4.74
—
SOURCE: United States Minerals Year-Book 1937, pp. 812-813; 827-829.
District
Regional Variations in Extent of Mechanisation
As mechanisation is one of the main elements in labour productivity, it is important to emphasise the effect of variations in
— 170 —
its extent. Figures on the varying extent to which coal is won
by mechanical appliances in some of the larger coal-mining
countries were examined in Chapter V. Here it need only be
recalled that practically complete mechanisation in Belgium
and Germany (the Ruhr) compares with levels of from 80 to 90 per
cent, in the United States and France, and with a level of about
55 per cent, in Great Britain. The only general inference which can
be drawn is that Great Britain probably suffers from a serious competitive handicap because of the persistence of hand-cutting
methods in the mining practice of many small collieries, particularly
those of South Wales.
In South Wales, according to recent statistics, only one-fifth of the
coal is undercut mechanically. In other British coal-mining districts,
however, the level of mechanisation is comparable with that of other
countries: thus in 1936, for example, 91 per cent, of the coal was
undercut mechanically in North Staffordshire, 88 per cent, in Northumberland and in Fife and the neighbouring districts, 83 per cent, in
Lanark and the neighbouring districts, etc. In the field of mechanical
conveying, likewise, the British average of total output handled by
mechanical appliances is 48 per cent., while the inter-district
variation ranges from as high as 89 per cent, in North Staffordshire
and 84 per cent, in Fife, to as low as 2 per cent, in Shropshire,
South Staffordshire and Worcestershire. Details for 1936 are
given below:
TABLE IV.
PERCENTAGE OF OUTPUT UNDERCUT BY MACHINES AND
CONVEYED MECHANICALLY, BRITISH COAL-MINING DISTRICTS, 1 9 3 6
Undercut
Conveyed
Mining district
by machine
mechanically
Northumberland
88
45
Durham
39
21
Lancashire a n d Cheshire . .
58
59
South Yorkshire
47
56
West Yorkshire
48
25
Nottinghamshire
71
77
N o r t h Derbyshire
76
59
N o r t h Staffordshire
91
89
Warwickshire
70
67
S o u t h Wales a n d Monmouthshire
21
36
N o r t h Wales
67
82
Fife, e t c
88
84
Lothians, etc
- 60
56
• L a n a r k , etc
83
43
O t h e r districts (range) . . .
7 (o)-79(6)
2 (c)-78(d)
(a) Somersetshire. — (6) South Derbyshire. — (c) South Staffordshire, etc.; Shropshire.
— (d) Kent.
SOURCE: UNITED KINGDOM MINES DEPARTMENT: Sixteenth Annual Report of the Secretary
for Mines, 1937, p. 179.
— 171 —
In Germany, practically complete mechanisation of coal cutting
has been reached in the Saar, the Ruhr, Aachen and Lower Saxony.
About nine-tenths of the coal is obtained mechanically in Saxony
and in West Lower Silesia. In West Upper Silesia, however, only
25 per cent, of the coal is taken by means of mechanical appliances 1 .
Details for 1936 are as follows:
TABLE V. — PERCENTAGE OF COAL WON BY MECHANICAL APPLIANCES
IN GERMAN
MINING DISTRICTS, 1 9 3 6
Mining district
Ruhr
Aachen
Saar
West Upper Silesia
West Lower Silesia
Saxony
Lower Saxony . .
1934
1935
1936
97.0
92.4
96.2
94.7
87.3
18.8
89.3
82.0
93.6
96.6
99.3
99.9
24.7
87.5
89.5
94.7
18.1
87.9
74.2
94.7
SOURCE: Statistische Uebersiclit, 1936, p. 43.
In the United States, the average of mechanisation is substantially
higher than that of Great Britain but somewhat lower than that of
Germany, but the variations between districts are far wider than the
corresponding international differences. This is true of the proportion of underground output of bituminous coal mined by hand, shot
off the solid (without preliminary undercutting) or undercut by machines; as well as of the proportion mechanically loaded and/or
conveyed. The proportion of total bituminous output obtained
by excavating apparatus from strip pits also varies from insignificant fractions in most States, to considerable fractions in Illinois,
Ohio and Iowa and from 40 per cent, in Indiana to 65 per cent, in
Missouri. Details for 1935 are shown in table VI.
Regional Variations of Wage Rates
International differences of wage levels in coal mining are considered at greater length in Part II, Chapter II. Here it will suffice to
refer only to the most general findings which relate to the European
and North American countries, and only so far as they must be
taken into account in the bearing of wage rates on labour costs.
i It should also be noted that there is very intensive mechanisation of lignite strip pits
in the Rhineland, Central Germany, and East of the Elbe.
172
TABLE VI.
PERCENTAGE OF BITUMINOUS COAL MINED BY DIFFERENT
METHODS, UNITED STATES, SELECTED STATES, 1 9 3 5
(From underground workings; per cent, of underground output) (a)
Mined
by h a n d
State
Alabama
Arkansas
Colorado .
Illinois .
Indiana .
Iowa . .
Eastern Keriti ici
Western Ke nt uc ky
Missouri .
Ohio. . .
Pennsylvani a
West Virgir ia
(a)
9.1
0.4
28.2
3.2
0.7
13.0
4.6
1.0
24.6
3.0
22.0
6.8
Shot off
Cut b y
t h e solid machines
16.7
23.3
3.6
10.0
9.1
50.6
1.7
3.6
7.5
0.5
2.6
1.4
74.1
76.3
67.8
86.7
90.2
36.1
93.7
95.2
66.7
96.2
75.3
91.8
Mechanically
loaded and/or
conveyed
Per cent, of
total output
15.4
26.6
3.3
55.3
62.5
0.4
3.3
0.1
16.6
41.4
6.5
|
mined by
strip pits
1.3
7.8
7.1
2.1
64.5
9.7
0.5
Small percentages of non-specified methods in underground workings are not shown.
SOURCE: United Slates Minerals Year-Booh, 1937, p. 825.
At the upper end of the scale are the wage rates paid to coal miners
in the United States and Canada; at the lower end, those paid to
coal miners in Belgium and Poland ; in between are the wage rates
of colliery workers in the Netherlands, France, Germany (Ruhr),
Great Britain, and Czechoslovakia.
Consistently with the wide geographical dispersion of their coal
deposits and with the resulting variety of local conditions, variations in wage rates between different mining districts in the same
country reach their maximum in Germany, Great Britain and the
United States. In Poland there are appreciable variations of wage
rates among East Upper Silesia, the Dombrowa and Cracow
districts. By way of contrast, wage rates in France are almost
identical for the three great mining districts of the Nord,
Pas-de-Calais and Loire (Saint Etienne) \
In the underground coal mines of Germany, according to data for
1936, the daily wages paid to colliery workers in Upper Silesia
average from 79 to 81 per cent, of those paid to colliery workers in
the Ruhr or the Saar. The same range is found, for lignite mining,
between the wage rates of the Lower Rhineland (the highest in
1
See Statistische
Uebersicht,
1936, p . 82 (Poland) and p . 67 (France).
— 173 —
German mines) and those East of the Elbe (close to the lowest).
Details are as below:
TABLE VII.
AVERAGE DAILY WAGES (d)
(RM.) OF GERMAN COAL
MINERS PER MAN-SHIFT, 1 9 3 6
Mining district
A.
Coal:
Ruhr
Aachen
Saar
West Upper Silesia
W e s t Lower Silesia
Saxony
. . . .
. . . .
All colliery
workers
Hewers and loaders
separately (6)
7.17
6.49
7.05
5.69
5.69
6.15
8.16
7.19
7.59
6.67
6.08
6.61
B.
Lignite:
E a s t of the Elbe underground
and open pits
5.73
6.00
Central Germany (underground
and open pits)
. . . .
5.97
6.26
Lower Rhineland (open pits) .
7.28
7.20
(a) Including contributions to social insurance funds and social services.
(6) In strip pits, workers engaged in direct extraction separately.
SOURCE: Statistische Uebersicht, 1936, pp. 44-45.
In Great Britain the level of average cash earnings per manshift in 1936 (last quarter) was only 76 per cent, as high in the
districts of lowest wages (Northumberland, Durham), as in the
districts of highest wages (North Derby and Nottinghamshire).
Yorkshire wages were near the top of the scale, those of Scotland
and South Wales in the middle range; the details are given in
table VIII.
TABLE VIII.
AVERAGE CASH EARNINGS PER MAN-SHIFT OF BRITISH
COAL MINERS FOR THE LAST QUARTER OF 1 9 3 6
Mining district
Northumberland
Durham
Yorkshire
N o r t h Derby and N o t t i n g h a m s h i r e
South Derby, Leicestershire, Cannock Chase and
Warwickshire
Lancashire, Cheshire and N o r t h Staffordshire . . . .
South Wales and Monmouthshire
Cumberland, N o r t h Wales, South Staffordshire, Shropshire, Bristol, Forest of Dean, Somerset and K e n t .
Scotland
S O U R C E : U N I T E D KINGDOM M I N E S D E P A R T M E N T : Sixteenth
for Mines, 1937, p p . 152-153.
Annual
8s. 7 y^d.
8s. 7 y 4 d.
l i s . 3 3 / 4 d.
l i s . 5%rf.
l i s . 2d.
10s. 5y2d.
9s. 8y2d.
9s. 8 %d.
9s. Id.
Report of the Secretary
— 174 —
In the United States, the range of regional variations in wages
far exceeds that of Germany and Great Britain, although it has
been narrowed in recent years as a result of the N.R.A. Codes1.
In 1936, for example, the worst-paid colliery workers (those of
Alabama) received only 57 per cent, as much hourly earnings as
did the best-paid (those of Utah). Hourly wages tended to their upper
levels in the Rocky Mountain States (Utah, Montana, Wyoming,
Colorado), to their lower levels in the South (Alabama, Arkansas,
Tennessee), to their middle ranges in the Appalachians (Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky and the Central Field
(Illinois, Indiana). In detail, the following differentials prevailed:
TABLE IX.
AVERAGE
HOURLY
EARNINGS OF WAGE
EARNERS,
UNITED STATES BITUMINOUS COAL MINES, 1 9 3 6 (iN U . S . DOLLARS)
State
Underground
All wage earners
mines:
underground and
strip pit mines (a) miners and loaders
Strip pit mines,
all earners
(b)
Utah . . . .
Montana
. .
Indiana . . .
Illinois . . .
Colorado
. .
W e s t Virginia
Pennsylvania
Ohio . . . .
Kentucky . .
Kansas . . .
Virginia . . .
Tennessee . .
Missouri . . .
Alabama
. .
0.955
0.886
0.841
0.837
0.831
0.801
0.799
0.775
0.719
0.686
0.679
0.631
0.624
0.543
1.168
1.000
1.001
0.897
0.864
0.865
0.821
0.774
0.761
0.605
0.680
0.617
0.607
0.551
0.818
0.816
0.747
0.724
(a) On basis of time actually worked. — (b) Based on time actually worked at face;
rates are somewhat lower for time at face, including lunch and still lower for time in mine.
SOURCE: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR: Monthly Labor Review, Vol. 45, No. 5,
Nov. 1937, pp. 1084, 1086, 1087, 1088.
As the data show 2, variations between countries in the level of
wage rates bear no fixed relationship to variations between countries in the level of labour productivity. In the United States, the
highest wage rates in the world go with the highest productivity
1
F o r studies of this narrowing, see W . E . F I S H E R : Production and Distribution
Costs and Sales Realization . . . of the Bituminous
Coal Industry, University
of P e n n s y l v a n i a , J u l y 1 9 3 5 ;
U N I T E D STATES FEDERAL EMERGENCY
A D M I N I S T R A T I O N : The Bituminous
Coal Industry
Fuels, M a y 1935.
2
See Chapter V I I I ; also Vol. I I , Chapter I I .
with Survey
of
RELIEF
Competing
— 175 —
in the world; in Poland, wage rates, which are close to the lowest
of Europe, go with the highest labour productivity of Europe; in
still another case, that of Great Britain, productivity somewhat
below the European average corresponds to wage rates somewhat higher that the average for Europe; in Belgium, the lowest
productivity in Europe runs parallel with wage rates which also
touch the bottom of the European scale 1.
Differences of Labour Costs per Ton
As pointed out above, variations in labour costs per ton at the
pit-head are the combined result of divergencies in wage rates
and labour productivity. For the purposes of this chapter,
it will suffice to indicate here that in the competitive markets
of Europe, as summarised in table X, the level of labour
TABLE X.
RELATIVE LABOUR COSTS PER TON (COMMON CURRENCY)
OF SALEABLE COAL SELECTED COUNTRIES,
(British costs = 100)
Country
Union of South Africa (a)
Japan
Poland
Germany (West Upper
Silesia)
United States (bituminous)
Czechoslovakia
. . . .
Belgium
Germany (Ruhr)
. . .
Canada
Netherlands
Great Britain
United States (anthracite)
France
Including employers'
contributions for
social insurance
1935-1936
Excluding employers'
contributions for
social insurance
1935
1936
1935
1936
13 (b)
27
52
12 (¿>)
14
29
48
12
68 (c)
60 (c)
57
87
81 (d)
91
108
100
121
148
46
76
98
100
61
83
81 (d)
96 (c)
91
104
100
42
71
88 (c)
93
100
130
145
(a) Native and coloured workers—i.e. direct mining labour—only.
(6) Fqr all workers, including white supervisory labour, the figures were 23 and 22
for 1935 and 1936 respectively.
(c) Based on the official exchange rate of the mark. This rate is largely nominal, but
there are no means for computing the effective rate of the mark in transactions involving
coal.
(<i) Based on the post-devaluation rate of the belga in foreign exchange; these costs
would be higher if use .were made of the belga's weighted average value for the whole year.
SOURCE: International Labour Office Questionnaire to Governments. See Vol. II,
Chapter II.
1
Wage rates per hour are not the unique factor of average earnings per
man-shift and per year; other factors are the length of the working shift a n d
the n u m b e r of shifts worked per year. This caution is always to be k e p t
in mind.
— 176 —
costs in France (where such costs run highest) is perhaps three
times as high as the corresponding level in Poland (where such
costs are lowest). Polish labour costs, in their turn, are less than
half as large as those of Great Britain and just about half the level
to be found in Germany (the Ruhr); German costs (the Ruhr) are
about nine-tenths of British costs.
It is even more significant to compare labour costs per ton of
output for the individual exporting districts of the several countries
which compete for the world coal markets. Limited computations
of this character are shown in table XI ; in examining this table, it
should be kept in mind that the results are not strictly comparable,
because of differences in the methods of computation t h a t had to
be used. They are, however, approximately comparable; roughly
speaking, they show that with labour costs in South Wales equal to
100, those of Polish Upper Silesia are about one-third of that level;
those of the Ruhr, seven-tenths ; those of Durham, Scotland, Belgium,
and the Netherlands, between 85 and 90 per cent. ; those of Aachen,
just a trifle lower; and those of the Saar, a fourth higher. Since
1934, however, the margin between labour costs in South Wales and
other mining districts has tended to narrow somewhat, not only
as regards the collieries of the Ruhr and Aachen among external
TABLE XI.
RELATIVE LABOUR COSTS PER TON (COMMON CURRENCY)
SELECTED EUROPEAN EXPORT MINING DISTRICTS (1934-1936)
(South Wales costs = 100)
Country and district
Poland, East Upper Silesia (a).
Germany, Ruhr (e)
Great Britain, Durham (c) . .
Belgium (b)
Netherlands (b)
Great Britain, Scotland (c) . .
Germany, Aachen (b)
. . . .
Great Britain, South Wales and
Monmouthshire (c) . . . . .
Germany, Saar (e)
1934
1935
34
62(e)
78
(107) (d)
(92) (d)
75
88 (e)
100
"
35
62 (e)
80
84
98
79
94 (e)
100
128 (e)
1936
33
70(e)
86
88
88
97(e)
100
126 (e)
(a) Cash wages plus employers' contributions to social Insurance, overtime and family
allowances, paid holidays, wage taxes, and value of miners' coal per ton of coal mined.
(ft) Cash wages, plus employers' contributions to social insurance, per ton of coal mined.
(c) Cash wages only per ton of coal commercially disposable; last quarter of the three
years indicated.
(d) Figures for 1933.
(e) Cash wages plus contributions to social insurance, coal mined. Based on official
exchange rate of the Reichsmark. This rate is largely nominal, but there are no means for
computing the effective rate in export transactions involving coal.
SOURCE : Except for Belgium and the Netherlands (International Labour Omce Questionnaire
to Governments) calculated from data given in Statistische Uebersicht, 1936, relating
to output and wages per man-shift.
— 177 —
competitors, but still more as regards Durham and Scotland
among internal competitors.
The general' impression which emerges is that so far as low
labour costs at the pit-head may constitute an important advantage
in international competition, the coal mines of Polish Upper Silesia
have a long lead over any other collieries in Europe.
So far as high labour costs may be a similar disadvantage,
the Saar mines would seem to suffer most from this handicap 1.
The Ruhr mines enjoy an appreciable advantage on labour account
over those of South Wales; similar advantages, but of smaller
dimensions, are enjoyed by the collieries of Durham and Scotland
as well as by those of Belgium and the Netherlands 2.
Because of the effects of regional differences in labour costs
within a country upon home and foreign trade both, it is important
to take note of the inter-district variations which prevail in some of
the major coal-mining countries. In Great Britain, during the last
quarter of 1936, wage costs per ton of coal commercially disposable
reached their maximum in the district of Lancashire, Cheshire
and North Staffordshire—at 10.94 shillings—and their minimum
in Northumberland—where they were only 7.67 shillings per ton.
Costs in the cheapest mining district were thus 70.4 per cent, of those
in the dearest mining district. Further details are given below:
AVERAGE WAGE COSTS PER TON OF COAL COMMERCIALLY
DISPOSABLE,
SELECTED
MINING
DISTRICTS,
GREAT
Mining district
Last q u a r t e r of 1936
Northumberland
Durham
Yorkshire
North Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire
South Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Cannock Chase, and
Warwickshire
Lancashire, Cheshire, and North Staffordshire . . .
South Wales and Monmouthshire
Cumberland, North Wales, South Staffordshire, Shropshire, Bristol, Forest of Dean, Somerset, and Kent
Scotland
SOURCE:
UNITED
for Mines,
KINGDOM
BRITAIN, 1 9 3 6
MINES DEPARTMENT:
10th Annual
7s.
8s.
9s.
8s.
Sd.
Zy2d.
2d.
5%d.
10s. l%ci.
10s. ll%c¡.
9s. 8d.
10s. 6%d.
8s. 6d.
Report
of the
Secretary
1937, p p . 150, 157.
In Germany, the lowest labour costs by far are those of open-pit
lignite mines in the Rhineland, East of the Elbe, and Central
1
The Saar, however, furnishes its export coal mostly to inland markets,
e.g. France and Switzerland, which its competitors cannot reach except by
longer and more costly routes.
2
But the several mining districts here concerned furnish neither the same
types of coal nor supply to the same markets in equal proportions.
C R . i.
12
— 178 —
Germany, the highest probably those of underground lignite
mines East of the Elbe x. Among the deep coal mines, labour costs
touch their lowest level in the Ruhr—4.19 RM. per metric ton in
1936—and their upper limit in Saxony—7.62 RM. in that same year.
The maximum level is thus 182 per cent, of the minimum level.
The details are given below:
WAGE COSTS PER METRIC TON, SELECTED COAL MINING DISTRICTS,
GERMANY, 1936
Mining district
1936
(Reichsmarks)
Ruhr
Aachen
Saar
West Upper Silesia
West Lower Silesia
Saxony
Rhineland (lignite, open pits)
4.19
5.51
7.47
5.72
5.71
7.62
1.15
SOURCE: calculated from data in the Statistische Uebersicht, 1936, relating to output per
man-shift and wages per man-shift.
In the United States, for the period between April 1934 to
January 1935, labour costs fell as low as $0.43 per short ton in the
strip mines of Indiana and Illinois and rose as high as $1.41 per ton
in the deep mines of Alabama, Southern Tennessee, and Georgia.
In other words, the difference between the top and the bottom
of the range was more than 300 per cent., not to speak of the appreciable variations between such competitive districts as Pennsylvania,
Ohio, West Virginia and Kentucky. This is shown summarily below :
LABOUR
COSTS
PER
TON
OF
BITUMINOUS
DISTRICTS, UNITED STATES,
Mining district
COAL,
MAJOR
MINING
APRIL 1934-JANUARY 1 9 3 5
U.S. dollars
Western Pennsylvania
1.19
Ohio
1.15
West Virginia Panhandle
1.13
Northern West Virginia
1.00
Southern Appalachian No. 1
1.15
Southern Appalachian No. 2
1.09
Illinois—Deep mines
0.95 (a)
Illinois—Strip mines
0.43 (a)
Indiana—Deep mines
0.81 (a)
Indiana—Strip mines
0.43 (a)
Alabama, Southern Tennessee, and
Georgia
1.41
(a) figures for November 1934-January 1935.
1
The N.R.A.
figure of
1.15 on
RM.
ton for
strip pits
the mimeographed.
Rhineland is
SOURCE:
studies
the per
operation
of lignite
the bituminous
coalinCode,
exclusive of the labour costs in the auxiliary works which transform a large
part of the output of raw lignite into solid fuel briquettes. For Central Germany
and East of the Elbe, the available data do not permit separate calculations
as regards underground mines, on the one hand, and strip pits, on the other.
— 179 —
Summary
For the reasons brought out on pp. 163-167, it would be easy
to exaggerate the weight of regional variations in labour costs
as a competitive factor in the marketing of coal by individual
raining districts. On the other hand, the existence of regional
advantages and disadvantages on labour account cannot be denied.
The question is examined further in relation to total costs and
prices in Chapter VIII.
II. POLICIES AFFECTING COMPETITIVE RELATIONS
As suggested at the outset of this chapter, the competitive advantages and disadvantages due to ease of mining, closeness to markets,
skill of labour, etc., are not allowed free play to shape the structure of
the world's coal markets. Since at least 1931, almost all governments have been applying special measures to regulate competition
on the home market, to swing the balance of competition abroad
in favour of their own nationals, to enter into preferential trading
arrangements as exporters or importers of coal. A brief account
of these measures will help to clarify the processes by which the
strictly economic factors of international competition have been
blocked from full expression in the coal markets of the world.
The home markets of the countries where coal is mined are
themselves important factors in the world coal trade. Even
where imports into the home market are small, they would
usually be much larger were it not for the special measures taken to
limit such imports (e.g. United States, Poland, Soviet Union, etc.).
In all cases, moreover, where the national mining districts sell in
large volume to the home markets, this serves to reduce the overhead costs of mining coal for export and thus allows export shipment
at more favourable prices than would otherwise be possible. It may,
therefore, be best to begin the present account by considering the
measures taken in the individual coal-mining countries to protect
their home markets in favour of the national collieries *.
1
This account is of conditions as they existed in the summer or autumn of
1936. The changes which have occurred since then relate in the most
important cases to details. The information concerning specific measures is
summarised from the tariff laws, decrees, orders, etc., of the various countries
as set forth in consular reports of various countries and as brought out, passim,
in the following studies: P.E.P. Report on the British Coal Industry, 1936;
A. DUBOSCQ: Le Conflit Contemporain des Houillères Européennes, Paris, 1936;
COMITÉ DE L'IMPORTATION CHARBONNIÈRE : Etudes sur l'Organisation
du
Marché Charbonnier dans les pays étrangers, Paris, 1937, Vol. 1 ; J. R. BRADLEY,
Competitive Conditions in the International Coal Trade, United States Depart-
/
— 180 —
Two types of measures in this field may be distinguished :
(1) protective customs duties; and (2) quota limitations.
Protective Customs Duties
By the term customs duties must be understood not only tariff
levies in the strict sense but also many kinds of special import levies
including turnover, excise and equalisation taxes, etc., port, river
and primage charges, etc., as well as fees for import licences where
quota systems are in force.
It is very difficult to give a precise meaning to the term protective
tariff in its bearing on imports of coal, lignite, coke and briquettes.
On the one hand, there is the question of deciding which of several
levels of customs duties is capable of yielding the largest sum of
revenue to the national treasury. On the other hand, there is the
question of deciding whether any given level of customs duties is
capable of effectively sheltering the national collieries against
foreign competitors.
Customs duties for protective purposes, for revenue purposes, or
for both, were levied on coal and its products in 1936 in the following
countries among others:
Germany (turnover tax);
Australia (primage charges);
Austria (turnover tax; supplementary crisis tax);
Belgium (turnover tax with supplements; fees for import licences);
Brazil (customs duties);
Bulgaria (customs duties);
Canada (customs duties; excise tax);
Chile (customs duties);
China (customs duties);
Spain (customs duties);
United States (customs duties);
France (customs duties; turnover tax; fees for import licences);
Greece (turnover tax);
Hungary (turnover tax; customs handling fees; clearance fee);
India (customs duties);
French Indo-China (customs duties);
Italy (customs duties; turnover tax);
Japan (customs duties);
Latvia (customs duties);
Mexico (customs duties);
Netherlands (customs duties; turnover tax);
ment Peru
of the(customs
Interior, duties);
October 1936; H. A. VAN BEUNINGEN: De Steenkolenoeconomie
der Voornamste
Productielanden, The Hague, 1936; the monthly
Portugal
(customs duties);
issues of International Coal Trade, 1935-1937, published by the United States
Department of the Interior.
— 181 —
Rumania (customs duties; turnover tax; import surtax; port tax;
licence fees for imports);
Switzerland (customs duties);
Czechoslovakia (compensatory tax; turnover tax);
Turkey (customs duties; turnover tax; municipal tax);
Yugoslavia (customs duties; turnover tax);
Union of South Africa (customs duties).
In general, it may be said that the customs duties on coal and its
products reached protective levels in such countries as Belgium,
Brazil, Canada, Spain, the United States, France, Rumania,
Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Turkey 1. Elsewhere the level of
duties seemed to be designed mainly for revenue, although in many
of these cases (e.g. Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands) tariff duties constitute only a minor weapon in the general
arsenal of protection. It should be kept in mind that protective
tariffs on coal and its products are largely a creation of the last
few years. They arose directly out of the Great Depression; before
that, world trade in coal was hampered by few if any commercial
obstacles.
Quota Limitations
Also a result of the Great Depression, systems of limiting the
total volume of imports of coal and its products by quotas are now
in force in a large number of important coal-consuming countries,
most of which are also large producers of coal. The list of quota
countries in 1936 included:
1
In Belgium, there were turnover taxes of 2.5 per cent, of the duty-paid
value—with supplements, in certain cases of equal amount—superimposed on
import licence fees of from 10 francs per metric ton (coal for industrial use)
to 15 francs (coal for domestic use). In Brazil, where there are general and
minimum tariffs, the customs duties ranged down from 28$220 to 22$930 gold
milreis per long ton. In Canada, leaving aside the marked preferences in
favour of British coal, bituminous coal paid duties of $0.75 per short ton;
anthracite $0.50 customs duties plus $0.21 excise tax. In Spain, ignoring
large preferences in favour of British coal, raw coal paid customs duties ranging
from 7.50 to 22.50 gold pesetas per metric ton; coke and briquettes from 9 to
27 gold pesetas. In the United States, a duty of $2 per short ton was imposed on
imports of coal, coke, briquettes, etc., from countries which export larger
quantities of such articles to the United States than they import from it.
In France, there were customs duties, strictly speaking, of 2 frs. per metric ton,
fees for import licences of 6 frs. per metric ton, and a supplementary import
tax of 2.75 per cent, of the duty-paid value. In Rumania, the general and
minimum tariffs ranged from 50 to 135 lei per 100 kg; over and above this,
there were turnover taxes of from 1.5 to 1.8 lei, import licence fees of 10 lei,
and import surtaxes of 12 per cent, ad valorem added to a port tax of 0.5 per
cent. In Turkey, superimposed on a more or less general prohibition of imports,
there were customs duties ranging from 2 to 13 Turkish pounds per metric ton, a
turnover tax of 10 per cent, and a municipal tax equal to 10 per cent, of the
customs duties. In Yugoslavia, the minimum and maximum tariffs ranged
from 3 to 8 gold dinars per metric ton, over and above which there were turnover
taxes running from 3.4 to 4 per cent.
— 182 —
Germany ;
Austria ;
Belgium ;
Spain;
France ;
Hungary;
Ireland;
Italy;
Japan;
Latvia ;
Netherlands ;
Poland (almost complete prohibition of imports);
Rumania;
Czechoslovakia;
Turkey (almost complete prohibition of imports);
Yugoslavia ;
U.S.S.R. (almost complete prohibition of imports).
Where quota systems have been put into effect, they have
usually aimed at the protection of the national collieries against
foreign competition (e.g. Germany, Belgium, France, Poland, the
Netherlands). In certain cases, however, the purpose has been to
foster the consumption of national resources of peat, firewood, or
both, (e.g. Ireland, Latvia). It must also be kept in mind that quota
limitations upon coal and its products usually form part of a
system of national devices for maintaining the value of the currency
in foreign exchange. Significantly, the system of quota limitations
has had its largest development in the countries which formerly
belonged to the " gold bloc "—e.g. France, Belgium, the Netherlands,
Switzerland—and in the countries which have practised severe
exchange control—e.g. Germany, the Balkan and certain South
American States. Although the devaluation of the gold bloc
currencies in the autumn of 1936 led to a considerable liberalisation
of quota restrictions, in France above all, the system still retains
a strong foothold throughout the European markets 1 .
1
In France (before the devaluation of the franc in September 1936) imports
of coal were limited for all suppliers to 58.5 per cent.of average shipments during
the base period (1928-30) ; exemptions from the quota were allowed, however, in
the cases of coking coal for metallurgical use and of metallurgical coke as well
as in the case of bunker fuel for French ports shipped as cargo. In the Netherlands (before devaluation in September 1936), imports were limited to 60 per
cent, of shipments in the base period (1933). In Germany, imports of coal from
the two principal suppliers—Great Britain and Czechoslovakia—were limited in
accordance with sliding scales. That for Great Britain was governed by Germany's total coal consumption during each preceding period, and that for Czechoslovakia was governed by the barter of Czechoslovakian lignite against German
pit coal. In some of the cases—e.g. Poland, Turkey, the U.S.S.R.—the quota
limitations were so severe as to amount in substance to a more or less complete
embargo on imports. In at least two cases—Italy and the U.S.S.R.—-the
import of coal was a State monopoly, thereby becoming entirely subordinate
to the exigencies of national commercial policy.
— 183 —
Commercial Organisation
The nature and functioning of the devices by which coal mining
is commercially organised in individual countries so as to regulate
trade in the home and foreign markets and to maximise exports,
minimise imports, or both, need not be examined here at length \
It will suffice to observe that none of the European coal-exporting
countries enjoys a great lead over any other by virtue of a superior
commercial organisation of the home and export trade in coal and its
products. In Germany, Belgium, France, Great Britain, Poland,
Czechoslovakia, etc., elaborate schemes have been set up for regulating this trade by means of output quotas for individual districts
and collieries, the allotment of sales participations, official control
of prices, preferential zoning of the home market, etc. Except in
the United States, Great Britain and a few other countries, the coal
industry has reached a very high level of commercial and
financial integration. Almost all of the coal-exporting countries
have won for themselves preferential advantages in individual
importing markets; most of the importing markets are bound
preferentially to particular export shippers; an export agreement
is in force between Great Britain and Poland, and coke shipments
are regulated by an all-European cartel 2.
Export Subsidies
Direct or indirect subsidies in aid of the coal export trade are an
almost universal practice ; by means of such subsidies, the countries
which struggle for world markets seek to gain marketing advantages
for their national collieries or to relieve them from marketing
disadvantages. In many cases, these subsidies are of a quasiofficial character in that the Goverment gives its express or tacit
support to private arrangements under which the colliery owners
seek to benefit their export shipments at the expense of consumers
in the home market. In other cases, however, the Government
intervenes directly with the payment of bonuses, premiums, etc.,
on account of export shipments. Direct or indirect, official or
1
2
See Chapter IX for further discussion.
For further details see Chapter IX. For more detailed descriptions of the
commercial organisations of the coal export trade in the various European
countries, see A. DUBOSCQ: Le Conflit contemporain des Houillères Européennes,
Paris, 1936, pp. 106-157; Comité de l'Importation Charbonnière (France).
Etudes sur l'Organisation du Marché charbonnier dans les pays étrangers.
Paris, 1937, Vol. I; J. R. BRADLEY: Competitive Conditions in the International
Coal Trade, Washington, 1936, pp. 23-27. H. A. VAN BEUNINGEN, op. cil.
— 184 —
quasi-official, the practice of allowing subsidies to the coal export
trade assumes a great variety of forms, of which four general types
may be usefully distinguished:
(1) Export shipments may be aided by special bonus or premium
payments, in which event the necessary sums are usually
raised by levies upon the output of coal, coke, briquettes,
etc., or upon the tonnage consumed by the home markets;
(2) Freight charge schedules, usually those of State railways,
may be adjusted so as to encourage export shipments,
discourage import shipments, or both;
(3) Collieries may be granted special facilities in the way of
relief from tax burdens, particularly with regard to export
shipments of coal;
(4) The coal trade may be organised commercially so as to
facilitate exports at lower prices than prevail for the same
kinds and grades of coal in the home market.
Export Bonuses and Premiums
Germany is the outstanding case of a country which grants
bonuses and premiums for export shipments of coal and its products x. But Germany is by no means an isolated case. Other
countries, where official or unofficial subsidies are or were recently
paid (the funds usually being raised by equalisation taxes upon coal
tonnage mined or by excise taxes on coal tonnage consumed),
include Australia (Queensland), Belgium, Canada, Chile and Poland.
It is apparent, wherever export subsidies are granted, that the
cheapness of coal in the export markets must be paid for to some
extent by its dearness in the home markets 2.
1
Although it is impossible to obtain exact information on this point, it is
known that the funds raised by the turnover tax on industrial and commercial
transactions in Germany are applied to paying export bonuses and premiums.
These payments are based on the need of relieving export shipments from the
exchange disadvantage of the (nominal) maintenance of the Reichsmark at
its gold parity, and are proportional to that need. Exports of coal and coke
are generally believed to receive the benefit of such payments on a tonnage
basis, but at what rates exactly cannot be said. Over and above this unknown
quantity, which amounts to a de facto devaluation of a currency nominally
held at its former gold content, there is the known factor of the true export
bonuses paid to its members by the Rhenish-Westphalian Coal Syndicate, which
handles almost all the export coal shipped from Germany. The necessary
funds are raised by an equalisation tax—the Umlage—which is levied upon
the total output of each member colliery, the rate of tax varying between coal
mined for the market and coal mined for self-consumption by affiliated works.
2
Akin to export subsidies are the practices in certain countries whereby
the Government guarantees short-term credits to facilitate the export trade
in coal (Chile, Great Britain, Poland, Soviet Union) or long-term loans for
— 185 —
Preferential Freight Rate Schedules
Even more common than export subsidies is the practice of
adjusting railway freight charges so as to favour export shipments,.
discourage import shipments, or both. The best-known example
would be the exceptionally low charges for hauling coal by rail
from Katowice in East Upper Silesia to Gdynia or Danzig on the
Baltic ; but Poland is far from being alone in this or similar practices.
Among the countries where State-owned railways allow reduced
rail freights upon export shipments of coal and its products, are
Germany, Australia (New South Wales), Austria (also for coal
in transit), Belgium, Bulgaria, Hungary, India, Netherlands,
Poland, Czechoslovakia (also for coal in transit), Union of South
Africa. Among the countries where Government subsidies are
granted to compensate private railways for reducing their rates on
export shipments, are Spain and Great Britain 1. Among the countries where freight rates on the State-owned railways are adjusted
to favour domestic coals in competition with imported coals, are
Germany, Australia (New South Wales), Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada,
Spain, France, Hungary, Poland, India, Czechoslovakia.
In
Canada, the private railways are compensated by the Government
for making similar allowances.
Mention might be made also of shipping subsidies as a factor
which, indirectly at least, may work out to the benefit of the
transportation charges for export coal. To the countries which
subsidise their merchant vessels in the cargo trade belong Canada,
Chile, the United States and Great Britain.
In no individual case can it be said with precision how far the
freight rate allowances in favour of coal exports operate as a genuine
subsidy and how far they merely make possible a volume of traffic
which would otherwise never come into being. In general, however,
the practice serves to lower the price of export coal below the
levels which would have to prevail in the absence of freight rate
allowances; the practice may thus be described as creating or
widening a discriminatory spread between export and home prices.
To the extent that railways must recoup these allowances by higher
the rationalisation of collieries (Germany, Chile, New Zealand). Where such
credits or loans are guaranteed by the Government, they do not involve
subsidies, direct or indirect, except to the extent that they may be granted at
cheaper terms than commercial banks would charge or that guarantees may
be 1given to risks which commercial banks would not be willing to assume.
For the special nature of the British subsidies, see p. 186.
— 186 —
freight rates on other commodities, it is the home market consumer
who pays.
Relief from Tax Burdens
The outstanding example of favouring a national coal industry by
relief from tax burdens is afforded by the Derating Scheme which
came into effect in Great Britain in 1929 1. This scheme does not,
however, stand by itself; other countries where an effort is made to
stimulate export shipments of coal by relief from tax burdens include
Brazil, Belgium, Chile, Spain, France, Hungary, India, Peru,
Poland, Czechoslovakia, South Africa and Turkey. In some cases,
the relief from tax burdens is granted to all collieries indifferently;
in other cases, the relief takes the form of rebating turnover, excise
or production taxes or river dues, port charges, loading charges, etc.,
where coal is shipped for export 2 . In all cases, it must be supposed
that the taxes of which the collieries are relieved must be made up
to the national treasury by other levies. These levies necessarily
fall on the general population, so that to this extent, once again,
the consuming public pays for the special benefits which are granted
to the coal export trade.
Price Discrimination between Home and Export Markets
It is practically impossible to obtain meaningful data on the
spread, if any, between home market and export prices in the coal
trade; most of the available information on this point is carefully
guarded as a trade secret. That such spreads do exist, particularly
in the cases of Germany and Poland, is a matter of general belief
resting on the known commercial objectives and the known com1
Under this scheme, all collieries, in common with other undertakings engaged in productive activity, became entitled to relief from local rates to the
extent of 75 per cent, of the amount which would be payable but for the provisions of the scheme. It has been calculated that the relief afforded to the British
collieries would average somewhat more than 3d. per ton on all coal commercially disposable, and would reach still higher levels in some of the depressed
export districts, notably South Wales, where the burden of local rates is
heavier than elsewhere in the country. Even larger savings result from
the provisions of the Derating Scheme, which require the railroads to
rebate to coal exporters a proportional part of their relief from local rates.
These rebates have reached, it is estimated, from about 8d. to lOd. per
ton.
2
Mention might also be made of the practice of reducing customs duties on
supplies and machinery used by the coal mines, coking works, etc., of the
countries concerned. This practice is found, for instance, in Brazil, Bulgaria,
Canada and India. In Germany, the Government has taken over certain
insurance charges formerly paid by the mine operators.
— 187 —
mereiai organisation of the coal trade in these and other countries 1.
All that can be said is that in Germany and Poland particularly,
and in Great Britain to a lesser extent, the coal-marketing machinery
is so set up as to facilitate and promote the practice of price
discrimination between home and export markets 2.
In Germany, the possibility of price discrimination goes back to
the existence of district cartels which quote official prices in the home
market and to the handling of practically all export coal by one
marketing agency, the Rhenish-Westphalian Coal Syndicate. In
Poland, the possibility arises out of the highly cartelised character
of the home market and out of an export agreement covering all
districts and mines. In Great Britain, the possibility is related to
the existence of district marketing schemes, covering sales quotas
and prices, together with the recent steps to establish central selling
schemes in each of the mining districts 3.
Preferential Trade Agreements
Perhaps the outstanding commercial characteristic of the period
since 1929 has been the tendency to replace multilateral by bilateral
trading. In the practical realisation of this tendency, coal and its
products have shared as much as, if not more than, any other staple
1
Some partial statistical confirmation for Germany is given by the following
figures which compare the Umlage of the Ruhr Syndicate (for sales shares)
with the frontier value of exported coal (in R.M. per ton).
Umlage
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
2.37
2.95
3.54
4.08
4.13
Value
23.15
18.69
13.71
11.98
10.60
Somewhat more direct evidence, but ending in 1932, is given by the following
figures for Poland which compare sales prices for home market deliveries,
export shipments to inland markets, export shipments to overseas markets
(in Zl. per ton).
Home
Inland
Overseas
market
exports
exports
1928
18.0
23.7
14.6
1930
20.8
24.2
13.3
1932
19.2
24.8
7.7
SOURCE: Le Conflit des Houillères Européennes, p. 55 (quoting from the reports of the
Reichskohlenverband)
and p. 59 (quoting from a study by the Polish Governmental
I n s t i t u t e for Business Cycle Research).
2
In all countries where prices in the home market are fixed or regulated
by official or semi-official bodies, there is the possibility of discriminating
between export and domestic prices of coal.
3
For a discussion of the marketing machinery of the coal trade in individual
countries, see Chapter IX.
— 188 —
commodity of world trade. Before 1929 almost all of the European
coal markets could be described as free in the sense that imports
from every source were treated on equally favourable or equally
unfavourable terms. To-day, however, the European coal markets
as a whole are characterised by a multitude of preferential trade
arrangements and barter agreements; it would be hard to find a
single market of any consequence where preferential advantages are not granted to one supplier or to one set of suppliers.
It is Great Britain above all which enjoys competitive advantages
in the international coal trade by virtue of bilateral trading
arrangements. In summary, the preferential agreements to which
Great Britain is a party include :
First, and foremost, are the trade agreements of 1933, by which
the Scandinavian countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, and
Sweden) bound themselves to cover certain minimum percentages
of their coal imports by British shipments 1.
Second, the trade agreements of 1934, by which the Baltic
countries (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) bound themselves
similarly 2.
Third, the coal-livestock agreement of 1935, by which Ireland
agreed to take virtually the whole of its coal imports from Great
Britain in return for facilities relating to British purchases of
Irish livestock 3.
Fourth, the customs preferences enjoyed since 1927 by exporters
of British coal to Spain 4.
Fifth, the trade agreement of 1934 by which France assured to
British coal imports their due share under the normal quota limits5.
Sixth, the tariff preferences based on the Ottawa Agreements
which British exporters of coal to Canada have enjoyed since 1932 6.
1
Denmark agreed to cover 80 per cent, of its imports by British coal;
Finland 75 per cent.; Norway 70 per cent.; and Sweden 47 per cent.
2
Estonia agreed to take 85 per cent, of its coal imports from Great Britain ;
Latvia 70 per cent, and Lithuania 80 per cent.
3
For the year 1936-1937, for example, Great Britain received an allotment
of 3,113,000 tons out of Ireland's total coal imports, under the quota system,
of 3,114,000 tons.
4
To the extent of 750,000 metric tons of pit coal annually, British imports
are dutiable at only 4.50 gold pesetas as compared with a first tariff rate of
22.50 pesetas and a second tariff rate of 7.50 pesetas.
5
The result was thus to guarantee to British coal shipments about twofifths of the quota imports. Some 5 per cent, of the British quota was later
reserved for the bartering of South Wales coal against mine pit props from
the Landes.
6
Where bituminous coal from other countries pays $0.75 per ton, British
bituminous pays only $0.35; where anthracite from other countries pays $0.50
import duties and $0.21 excise tax, British coal is free of duty.
— 189 —
Seventh, the favourable facilities for foreign exchange payments
granted to exporters of British coal under the trade agreements
of 1933 and 1936 with Argentina.
Germany's export shipments of coal also enjoy special privileges
by virtue of a long series of barter treaties, clearing agreements, etc.1.
Agreements of this kind are in force, for example, between Germany
and practically all of the Central European, Balkan and LatinAmerican countries. Above all, preferential trade accords have
helped to relieve much of the restrictive effect of quota systems upon
the volume of Germany's exports of coal and its products to France,
Belgium, and the Netherlands particularly 2. In Italy, purchases
of German export coal through the instrumentality of the State
import monopoly have been particularly favoured by the growing
closeness of the commercial, political, and military ties between
these two countries 3. In Switzerland, finally, preferential advantages arise out of the agreement by which the total expenditures
of German tourists in Switzerland are reserved for purchases of coal
from the Ruhr and the Saar.
Poland, like Great Britain and Germany, has also succeeded in
winning a special position in a number of important coal markets.
Of primary importance are the trade agreements of 1934 between Poland on the one hand, and Norway, Finland, and Sweden
on the other 4 . Of considerable importance also is the barter
treaty of 1933, between Poland and Italy 5. Special agreements
with France and with Austria in 1933 are also worthy of men1
It would be impossible to try to analyse these treaties and agreements in
detail; their number is very large and their details extremely complex. See
LEAGUE OF NATIONS: Clearing Agreements, 1935.
2
It is particularly to be stressed that under the French quota system, for
example, coking coal for metallurgical use, metallurgical coke and bunker
fuel for charging at French ports are exempted from the quota limitations
although requiring import licences. In practice, Germany's exports to France
are largely composed of coking coal and metallurgical coke from the Ruhr
to the iron and steel works of Lorraine. This has meant that the chief burden
of the French quota restrictions has fallen upon the shipments from Great
Britain which are largely composed of steam coal for industrial use and of
household coal.
3
The impact of sanctions upon the coal trade was to reduce Italian imports
of British coal to almost zero, the great bulk of the trade being diverted to
Germany. With the removal of sanctions, British exports to Italy have revived
considerably but not sufficiently to dislodge Germany from the advantages
which it gained during the period of the Italian-Ethiopian conflict.
4
Under these agreements, Poland was guaranteed 47 per cent, of Sweden's
imports of coal, from 27 to 37 percent, of Norway's, and 23 percent, of Finland's.
6
This treaty provided for the trading of Polish coal, first against steamships
to be built in Italian shipyards, and later against automobile parts to be
manufactured in Italy.
— 190 —
tion 1 . In general, however, Poland's limited bargaining power has
seemingly handicapped her in negotiating the same kind of trade
agreements from which both Great Britain and Germany, her
greatest competitors, have drawn so many preferential advantages
in the coal export trade.
It is out of the question here to examine the whole range of the
individual devices by which one or another coal-exporting country
has won for itself preferential advantages in various import markets.
The essential point, already sufficiently illustrated, is that equality
of treatment is a thing of the past in the European coal trade. Not
to speak of protection of the home markets and of export subsidies,
each of the exporting countries has won whatever privileged status
it could attain in as many markets as could be induced to grant
such status. So far as such commercial preferences have been
achieved, the strictly economic advantages or disadvantages of
international competition have lost much of their former weight.
This does not mean that competition in the European coal trade
is no longer affected by such purely economic factors as labour
cost, transportation charges, rates of foreign exchange, etc. It does
mean, however, that the competition in the European coal trade
must be viewed as a case of commercial dealing which is far
removed from " perfect competition " ; it has to be regarded as an
extremely complicated case of multilateral controls affecting
both the export and import sides of the trade equation. Out of
this tendency to monopoly has come the movement for international
regulation which is described in Chapter IX.
Currency Manipulation
To the extent that cost-price factors are significant in determining
competitive advantages and disadvantages in the international
coal trade, their incidence has been modified since 1931 by means
of devaluation, depreciation, and exchange control. In this train
of events, the depreciation of the pound sterling was of
basic importance; for with regard to the coal trade, the monetary
manipulations which have since ensued may be regarded as
attempts on the part of competing countries to bring their costs
and prices into line with those of Great Britain.
1
Under the agreement with France, Poland received certain supplementary
allowances over the basic import quota in return for contracts to build a minelayer in French shipyards. The agreement with Austria granted certain
monopolistic rights of delivery to the coal mines of East Upper Silesia.
— 191 —
The first effect of British devaluation, in 1931-1932, was to bring
deflationary pressure to bear on coal prices in all competing countries 1. While British prices at the pit-head and at export ports
barely changed—as reckoned in terms of pounds sterling—the
corresponding prices fell heavily in all of the competing countries—
as reckoned in their respective national currencies. Particularly
strong were the immediate responses in Germany and Poland,
as well as the long-run response in the Netherlands.
In time, the deflationary pressure came to be relieved as first
the United States (early in 1933), then Belgium (early in 1935), and
finally France and the Netherlands (in the autumn of 1936) followed
in the path of devaluation. Germany and Poland, however, maintained the nominal gold value' of their currencies, and tried to
achieve the same ends through systems of foreign exchange
control 2 .
Despite the temporary advantages and disadvantages which
resulted in the short run, it cannot be said that any country has
made permanent gains or sustained permanent losses in the coal
trade as a result of its monetary policies of the last five years. It
is true that the coal export trade of Great Britain received a strong
stimulus from the devaluation of the pound sterling in 1931-1932.
But this stimulus was largely offset at once by the heavy fall of coal
prices elsewhere and wore off, in the long run, with the successive
devaluations of the dollar, the Belgian franc, the French franc, and
the florin. In Germany and Poland, coal prices proved sufficiently
elastic to offset all or more of the handicap of maintaining the
currency at its normal gold value; any residue of disadvantages
which might have remained was wiped out by exchange control.
In brief, in so far as international competition in the coal markets is
concerned, the gains and losses have cancelled out.
Summary
A summary of the main features of commercial policy affecting the coal trade in the various countries in recent years is
presented in table XII.
1
See Chapter VIII.
Rigid control of foreign exchange by Germany may be dated for practical
convenience from the National-Socialist Revolution of 1933. Poland did
not introduce a system of exchange control until the latter part of 1936.
2
— 192 —
TABLE
XII.
THE ECONOMIC AND COMMERCIAL SET-UP OF THE
TRADE IN COAL, LIGNITE, COKE AND BRIQUETTES,
SELECTED
COUNTRIES
Germany:
Australia:
Austria :
Belgium:
Brazil:
Bulgaria:
Canada:
China:
Chile:
Denmark:
Spain :
United States:
Finland :
France :
Great Britain :
Greece :
Hungary :
India:
French Indo-China:
Ireland :
Italy:
Japan:
Latvia:
Mexico :
New Zealand :
Netherlands :
Norway :
Peru:
Poland :
Portugal :
Rumania:
Sweden :
Switzerland :
Czechoslovakia:
Turkey :
Yugoslavia:
U.S.S.R.:
Union of
South Africa:
A — B — E — FeI — L — 0 — P — Q — T — X
Bi _ F<=i2 — 0 1 •— P 1 — T — XC.
A — F«" — Q — T.
A — B — F«' — 0 — P — Q — TP.
A — E — H — P — R — TPP.
A — E — F"i — Q — R — T.
A — B — F' — M — TPP.
T.
B — C — L — M — R — TP — X.
A —E.
A — E — F ' — H — P — Q — R — TPP.
M — P — TPP.
A.
A — Fi — L 4 — 0 — P — Q — R — TP — X .
C — Fe — M — 0 — P — R — X — XC.
T.
A — E — F e l — H — P — Q — R -- T .
pel _ R _ T.
T.
A — H — Q — Y.
A —E — H —Q —S —T.
0 — Q — T — XC.
A — E — H 3 — Qe — T — Y.
T.
H — L — XC.
A — F e — Q — T.
A.
R —T.
B — C — E — F e l — 0 — P — Q e -- R .
T.
A — E — H — Q — TPP.
A.
A —Q —T.
A — F e " _ o — P — Q — TP.
A — E — H — Q« — R — TPP.
A — E — H — Q — TPP.
C — E — 0 — P — S — Qe.
XC.
F e — R — T.
i Queensland. 2 New South Wales, s For peat and wood.
* Grants to mines operating at a loss because of extra charges attributable to labour
conditions.
CODE : indicating the various practices in force
A = Preferential trade agreements usually assigning fixed shares to individual supplying
countries, allowing special tariff reductions, or both.
B = Export bonus system, official or quasi-official, the funds usually raised by an
equalisation tax on home-mined coal or on home markets sales.
C = Government guarantees of export credits for transactions involving coal or its
products.
= Exchange control system usually requiring permits for obtaining foreign exchange
to pay for imports of coal and its products.
privileges in favour of home-mined coal ; when to encourage export
F = Freight charge
shipments F e ; when to protect against import shipments, F ' ; when to promote
transit shipments, F'.
H = Enforced preference for home-mined coal in all purchases or in special kinds of
purchases.
Government guarantees for loans raised to rehabilitate or re-finance coal mines.
— 193 —
M = Shipping subsidies to the merchant marine, usually operating as indirect subsidies
to coal exports.
O = Schemes for controlling output, marketing, or both by the allotment of mining
quotas, sales participations, or both, to individual districts and collieries.
P = Fixing, control or regulation of home market prices by official or quasi-official bodies.
Q = Quota system limiting total imports and usually assigning fixed shares to individual
supplying countries; when total or substantial embargoes are in force, Q".
R = Tax rebates, tax concessions and similar measures to encourage home collieries
against foreign competition.
S = State monopoly of imports, usually joined to other commercial restrictions.
T = Customs duties or their equivalent; when the tariff is protective rather than for
revenue, TP; when preferential allowances are made in favour of certain suppliers,
TP or T P P .
X = Discriminatory taxes levied on other fuels (oil, petrol, natural gas, etc.) to discourage
their consumption in favour of coal.
XC = Governmental measures in support of the oil-from-coal industry (hydrogénation
or low-temperature carbonisation plants).
Y = Measures to encourage consumption of other fuels (e.g. peat, firewood or charcoal)
to the detriment of coal.
SOURCE: The laws, decrees, orders, treaties, custom schedules, freight tariffs, etc., of the
various countries concerned as summarised by the publications which are cited in the
text of this chapter.
The national and international devices for assuring the competitive balance between mining districts and mining countries are
discussed in Chapter IX.
13
CHAPTER VIII
PRICES, COSTS AND LABOUR STANDARDS
In preceding chapters, the post-war developments in the coalmining industry of the world have been presented so as to bring out
the recent changes in the world production and consumption of coal,
in the structure of the world coal market, and in the demand-supply
relationships of the industry. In brief, it has been shown that since
the World War, the industry has suffered from persisting economic
unbalance: the demand for coal has remained relatively stagnant
(partly as a result of the substitution of other fuels but chiefly
owing to economies in the use of coal) while the capacity to produce
coal has continued to increase (because of the development of
new mining facilities, and other factors, but chiefly as a result of
higher labour productivity due to mechanisation). The lack of
balance between the demand for, and the potential supply of, coal
has been aggravated by territorial changes, Reparation deliveries
in kind, large-scale strikes, economic nationalism and various
political developments. The combined effect of these developments
has been to accentuate the struggle for coal markets by means of
special devices and commercial policies which have tended to
intensify the stresses and strains in the international relations of
the industry.
As these strains became cumulative, they could not but have
adverse effects on the fortunes of all those—operators and workers
—who are engaged in coal mining and who obtain their livelihood
from the industry. In economic terms, this means t h a t the developments described have worked themselves out through their effects
on prices, costs and profits. In social terms, it means that the
effects have been felt by the workers in the industry in wage rates,
earnings, hours of work and other conditions of employment.
For a complete picture of the industry, it would, therefore, be
necessary to present a survey of price movements, costs, profit
margins, and of the social status of the workers.
In Volume II of this Report, the social condition of the
mine workers in the main coal-producing countries is examined,
— 195 —
with regard to wages and earnings, social insurance, employment,
hours of work, etc. It is beyond the scope of this part of the Report
to make a detailed survey of prices, costs, and profits. What is
called for, however, is a brief examination of the way in which
the inter-relations between prices, costs and labour standards have
evolved in response to underlying changes in the industry—economic,
commercial, technological, etc.—described in preceding chapters.
The data available for such an analysis are limited 1. Owing
to the limitation of available data, the discussion in this chapter
deals only with the cost-price relationships in the pit-coal industry
(bituminous and anthracite) of seven main coal-producing countries
of Europe 2. The questions examined here are the effects of diminished demand on output, prices and exports, and the way in
which the movement of prices has affected wage standards.
I.
PRODUCTION AND PRICES
As already indicated in Chapter IV, the combined volume of
output of coal in the seven coal-producing countries of Europe
1
On the side of costs, it should be noted that total costs are available over
a series of years only for Great Britain and Belgium, and while these are
relatively complete they are not strictly comparable. Total costs are available
for Prance only for 1935 and five months of 1936. Although total costs
are available for most of Netherlands coal production (State mines), they
are heavily weighted with costs of related establishments (coke, electricity,
brick and fertiliser). For Czechoslovakia, costs are available over a series of
years, but to the exclusion of amortisation. Total costs in recent years are
entirely lacking for Germany and Poland (except East Upper Silesia). On
the income side, value of coal produced is not available for Poland (except for
East Upper Silesia) nor for the privately operated mines of the Netherlands. In this connection also there is some question as to the value ascribed
to coal transferred to affiliated plants of colliery enterprises, whether at
current market prices or nominal transfer values. The tonnages of coal sold
under special trade agreements, barter arrangements, etc., are not known as
compared with those sold under free competition; also unknown are the
comparative values per ton of these two classes of coal. Finally, while extensive
data exist for the United States, the coal industry of that country is excluded
in this limited survey which is confined to countries involved in the European
coal trade.
2
As shown in Chapter II, there is a close interdependence among all classes
of coal produced. Nevertheless, lignite is excluded from consideration in this
chapter. To include lignite data with those for other coals would result in
considerable distortion of averages for Germany and Czechoslovakia as compared with other countries. Lignite production is a large element in the
coal output of Europe; also, the increase in lignite production has been partly
responsible for the fall in the production of bituminous and anthracite coal.
But most lignite is consumed quite close to the point of its mining, as its low
thermal value in the raw state does not permit it to be transported far in
competition with other coals. Only a very small quantity of lignite enters
international trade, on the course of which it has but little influence. For
purposes of the analysis of cost-price relationship and their influence upon
labour standards, the exclusion of lignite in no way invalidates the general
conclusions of this chapter.
— 196 —
considered in this chapter has contracted greatly since 1929. From
580.6 million metric tons in 1929, the production of Great Britain,
Germany \ France 1 , Poland, Belgium, the Netherlands and Czechoslovakia fell to 437.1 million tons in 1932, a decrease of 25 percent.
From the low level of 1932, output improved in each year thereafter
until in 1936 it stood at 87 per cent, of the tonnage mined in 1929.
The declines in the output of the several countries have varied considerably. The figures for production, by countries, are shown in table I
and on an index basis (1929 = 100) are represented in figure 1 2 .
Production of coal in Poland fell in 1933 to 59 per cent, of its
1929 level and in 1936 had risen only to 64 per cent, of 1929
output. Germany's coal output dropped to 64 per cent, in 1932
1
Excluding Saar.
D a t a used in this c h a p t e r have been t a k e n from published official documents
for each of t h e countries. This h a s been done in order t o obtain comparable
series for each c o u n t r y for t h e years from 1927 t o 1936. I n t h e tables of wage
cost per ton a n d earnings per d a y , t h e figures differ somewhat from those
reported in t h e replies t o t h e Questionnaire of t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l L a b o u r Office
shown in Vol. I I of this R e p o r t . Since d a t a were n o t available in t h e International Labour Office series for 1928,1930,1932 a n d 1934, it was felt advisable
to t a k e t h e complete series from published reports, as it w a s n o t possible
otherwise to arrive a t results for t h e missing years of t h e series. Attention
is also called t o t h e differences between d a t a reported for labour costs and
earnings per d a y as shown in this c h a p t e r and similar d a t a presented in other
chapters. These differences arise o u t of t h e fact t h a t certain items included
in t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l L a b o u r Office's labour cost and earnings series are n o t
included in t h e annual published reports. The series shown in this c h a p t e r
are furthermore n o t strictly comparable one with t h e other due t o differences
in coverage of items in t h e published official reports of t h e several countries.
However, each series is on an identical basis t h r o u g h o u t , so t h a t t h e trends
shown are indicative of t h e changes which have t a k e n place in each country
and of t h e relative degrees of change among t h e several countries.
2
The sources from which t h e production d a t a have been t a k e n a r e as follows :
Great Britain : Annual Reports of the Secretary for Mines.
Germany : Zeitschrift für das Berg-, Hüllen- und Salinentvesen im Deutschen
Reich.
F r a n c e : Statistique de l'Industrie
Minérale.
Belgium: Annales des Mines de Belgique.
P o l a n d : Statystyka Przemyslu Wegloivego w Panstivie
Polskiem.
Czechoslovakia: Statniko Ciradu Statistickeho Republiky
Ceskoslovenske.
N e t h e r l a n d s : Staatsmijnen
in Limburg (Annual R e p o r t s — S t a t e Mines).
For export data:
Statistisches Reichsamt, Germany. Statistisches
Handbuch
der Weltwirtschaft.
L E A G U E OF N A T I O N S : International Trade Statistics, Statistical
Year-Book.
M I N I S T È R E D E S FINANCES D E B E L G I Q U E : Bulletin
mensuel
avec les pays étrangers.
DIRECTION GÉNÉRALE D E S D O U A N E S , P a r i s : Statistique
merce extérieur de la France.
CENTRAL B U R E A U
VOOR D E S T A T I S T I E K ,
The
du
commerce
mensuelle du com-
H a g u e : Annual
Reports,
Netherlands.
STATISTICAL O F F I C E OF T H E CUSTOMS AND E X C I S E D E P A R T M E N T :
Statement of the Trade of the United
Kingdom.
Annuaire du commerce extérieur de la République
AusSenhandel der Cechoslovakischen
Republik.
Polonaise.
Annual
— 197 —
TABLE I.
PRODUCTION OF COAL BY SELECTED COUNTRIES, 1 9 2 7 - 1 9 3 6
Czecho- France Germany Nether- Poland
Belgium slovakia
(a)
lands
(o)
Total
for 7
countries
255,264
241,283
262,045
247,795
222,981
212,083
210,436
224,268
225,815
232,191
549,794
537,191
580,571
535,995
483,005
437,138
442,872
475,509
483,967
507,003
97.4
92.1
100.0
94.6
85.1
80.9
80.3
85.6
86.2
88.6
94.7
92.5
100.0
92.3
83.2
75.3
76.3
81.9
83.4
87.3
(a) In metric tons (000's
153,599
150,861
163,441
142,699
118,640
104,741
109,692
124,857
134,117
146,707
omitted)
9,488 38,084
10,920 40,616
11,581 46,236
12,211 37,506
12,901 38,265
12,756 28,835
12,574 27,356
12,341 29,233
11,878 28,545
12,803 29,747
United
Kingdom
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
27,551
27,578
26,940
27,415
27,042
21,424
25,300
26,389
26,506
27,876
14,016
14,568
16,548
14,469
13,165
11,032
10,627
10,789
10,894
12,353
51,792
51,365
53,780
53,900
50,011
46,267
46,887
47,632
46,212
45,226
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
102.3
102.4
100.0
101.8
100.4
79.5
93.9
98.0
98.4
103.5
84.7
88.0
100.0
87.4
79.6
66.7
64.2
65.2
65.8
74.6
(b) Indices, 1929 = 100
82.4
94.0
81.9
96.3
95.5
92.3
94.3
87.8
100.0
100.0
100.0 100.0
87.3
105.4
81.1
100.2
93.0
72.6
111.4
82.8
64.1
110.1
62.4
86.0
59.2
108.6
87.2
67.1
88.6
76.4
106.6
63.2
82.1
102.6
61.7
85.9
84.1
89.8
110.6
64.3
a Excluding Saar.
FIG. I.
PRODUCTION OF COAL, 1 9 2 7 - 1 9 3 6
(1929 = 100)
>
"^'**-*
**
HA/
^ ^ • « . »
yw
t
"""•^.
_¿ir
-_> — . — •
•;j£f
V
"'••.
\
/. ' "
* Vi.
/"É**^
»
"V.
/
A^r
s>
y-
y
/
1vV
/
Ä
•••*+•,
6o
••••*'
SO-
21
26
- — ——.—
=»
.
—
—
I929
30
Belgium
Czechoslovakia
France
Germany
31
32
33
34
35
. _ — . _ _ . Netherlands
*»f»»•»•••» Poland
_ _ _ _ _ United Kingdom
36
— 198 —
and in 1936 was only nine-tenths of the 1929 level. The Netherlands, on the other hand, enlarged its production steadily, the
output for each year after 1929 being above the level for that
year. Belgium also shows some increase in output for 1936 over
that of 1929. But taking the seven coal-producing countries of
Europe as a whole, their output in 1936 was only 87.3 per cent.
of the tonnage of 1929 \
The causes of this decrease in output, cyclical and other, have
been examined in earlier chapters. What is important to note
here is the effect of diminished demand—as expressed in lower
output—upon the levels of prices, costs, productivity and wages.
With the fall in demand, the competitive pressure to retain a
proportionate share of the domestic and foreign markets became
TABLE II.
AVERAGE VALUE OF COAL PER METRIC TON
AT THE PITHEAD, 1927-1936
Czecho- France
GerBelgium slovakia
(a)
many (a)
(a)
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
. . .
. . .
Ki.
Frs.
RM.
Gulden
150.07
130.41
159.88
155.39
123.89
107.96
96.01
85.71
95.74
106.84
109.4
108.4
110.4
107.9
106.2
103.5
95.2
90.1
88.4
88.8
112.77
100.54
111.0
113.0
100.0
89.0
82.0
79.0
78.0
14.22
14.47
15.03
14.84
12.96
11.07
10.49
10.29
10.27
10.41
9.53
7.96
8.92
9.29
7.75
5.59
4.97
4.66
4.91
5.25
93.9
81.6
100.0
97.2
77.5
67.5
60.1
53.6
59.9
66.8
United
Kingdom (f>)
c irrendes
Frs.
(b)
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
National
Netherlands
(State Poland
mines)
Zloty
s.
d.
i4ioy 2
19.99
19.10
17.69
15.42
13.72
12.33
11.75
11.67
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
0%
8V4
10 y4
9y2
7%
4
2
3%
14
43/4
Indices 19k '9 = 10 9
99.1
98.2
100.0
97.7
96.2
93.7
86.2
81.6
80.1
80.4
101.6
90.6
100.0
101.9
90.2
80.2
74.0
71.2
70.3
•
94.6
96.3
100.0
98.7
86.2
73.7
69.8
68.5
68.3
69.3
106.8
89.2
100.0
104.1
86.9
62.7
55.7
52.2
55.0
58.9
100.0
95.5
88.5
77.1
68.6
61.7
58.8
58.4
108.5
95.4
100.0
101.2
100.8
99.4
97.3
96.1
97.0
104.8
(a) Excluding Saar.
(6) United Kingdom: "Proceeds—represent the amount received lor coal... disposed
of commercially per ton of coal sold after deducting selling and delivery expenses."
1
For increases of output in 1937, see Chapter IV, p. 65.
— 199 —
FIG. II.
AVERAGE VALUE OF COAL PER TON, 1927-1936
(In national currencies)
(1929 = 100)
•*0+
27
H
f
1
-\
ZÒ
1929
30
31
— _ _ _ _ Belgium
- = — = = — " Czechoslovakia
. . . . . . . . . . . . France
^ — » —•— Germany
1
1
1
1
32
33
34
35
__.ÜÜÄ.—
•»•••»*•••
'
36
Netherlands
Poland
United Kingdom
more and more intense, and this pressure expressed itself in a
serious fall of coal prices at the pithead.
The movements of average pithead value per ton of coal mined
are shown in table II. Each of the countries (with the exception
of Great Britain whose case is discussed below) had to lower its
prices considerably in response to the conditions of the Great
Depression after 1930, and to the competitive strains which continued even after general recovery began in 1933. The trends of
pithead values in the several countries are shown by figure II,
in which the value for each year is expressed as a percentage of
the average value in 1929.
From the table and chart it may be seen that although total
output by the seven countries began to rise after the low ebb in
1932, pithead coal prices continued to fall for all countries through
1934. Between 1934 and 1935 prices fell somewhat in France and
much more in Poland; between 1935 and 1936, they rose somewhat
in Germany and Czechoslovakia, and considerably more in Great
— 200 —
Britain, Belgium and the Netherlands. Considered as a whole,
production had recovered in 1936 above the level of 1931, but the
levels of prices (except for Great Britain) were in 1936 much below
those of 1931.
The table and chart also indicate the wide divergencies in the
movements of pithead coal prices in the different countries.
Between 1931 and 1933, pithead prices of coal as reckoned in the
several national currencies fell by only 3.2 per cent, for Great
Britain, but by 10.4 per cent, for Czechoslovakia; 17.8 per cent.
for France; 19.2 per cent, for Germany; 22.5 per cent, for Poland;
22.5 per cent, for Belgium, and 35.9 per cent, for the Netherlands.
These figures would indicate that besides the general effects of
the depression, the devaluation of the £ sterling brought a strong
deflationary pressure to bear on the pithead prices of coal in all
other European countries.
II.
PRICES AND EXPORT TRADE
The extent to which the European coal-mining countries engage
in the coal export trade and the changes which have occurred in
the currents of this trade were discussed in Chapters VI and VII.
It was shown how each country has sought to employ special
measures to maintain or expand its export shipments. As indicated
in those chapters, many of the restrictive or facilitating measures
were adopted by individual countries to counteract similar measures
on the part of other countries. The sum of these efforts has been
to set up entirely new movements of coal as between countries
of origin and destination and to modify the proportions of coal
supplied into particular importing markets from the various
exporting sources. It remains to be examined how, and to what
extent, cost-price factors have continued to influence the structure
of the European coal trade—despite the growing tendency to limit
the scope of " free competition ".
In table II the average pithead value of all coal mined was
given by countries for each year from 1927 to 1936. The trend
lines of these prices were shown in figure II, the national averages
for each year being expressed as percentages of the averages for
1929. Similarly, the average values of exports at the frontier and
their trend lines are shown in table III and figure III. A comparison of these two sets of data reveals considerable variations
between the individual countries. Most significant is the fact
that in Germany the average price of exported coal dropped by
— 201 —
TABLE III.
EXPORT PRICES OF COAL PER METRIC TON
(F.O.B. —
PORT OF EXPORT)
CzechoBelgium slovakia France
(a)
1927.
1928.
1929.
1930.
1931.
1932.
1933.
1934.
1935.
1936.
Netherlands
Poland
Kc.
Frs.
RM.
Gulden
Zloty
195.7
167.6
199.6
202.1
169.3
173.3
155.1
141.4
156.9
166.2
199.5
189.3
170.4
175.3
176.0
166.7
151.2
142.7
134.6
126.7
150.133.0
133.3
135.2
125.2
108.5
104.4
101.0
111.8
22.54
19.77
19.83
20.65
17.73
12.90
11.32
9.84
9.41
9.35
11.19
10.14
11.76
12.46
10.53
9.95
9.02
7.91
7.47
7.55
30.91
28.05
27.60
26.79
24.53
20.54
18.36
15.99
14.71
15.55
95.2
86.2
100.0
106.0
89.6
84.6
76.7
67.3
63.5
64.2
112.0
101.6
100.0
97.1
88.9
74.4
66.5
57.9
53.3
56.3
98.1
84.0
100.0
101.3
84.8
86.9
77.7
70.9
78.6
83.3
Indices
117.1
111.1
100.0
102.9
103.3
97.8
88.7
83.8
79.0
74.4
United
Kingdom
currencies
Frs.
(b)
1927.
1928.
1929.
1930.
1931.
1932.
1933.
1934,
1935.
1936.
In national
Germany
17
15
15
16
16
16
15
15
16
16
53/ 4
41/4
10
41/4
0
0
93/4
10
1
8%
1929 = 100
112.6
100.0
100.0
101.4
93.8
81.4
78.3
75.8
83.9
113.7
99.7
100.0
104.1
89.4
65.1
57.1
49.6
47.5
47.2
110.4
97.0
100.0
103.3
101.0
101.0
99.9
100.0
101.6
105.5
1936 to 47.2 per cent, of the 1929 level, while the average value
of coal at the pithead in 1936 was about 70 per cent, of 1929.
Similarly, in Czechoslovakia export coal prices fell relatively more
by 1936 than domestic coal prices. In Poland, export prices fell
more heavily than average values until 1935, but in 1936 export
prices rose considerably. On the other hand, in Belgium, the.
Netherlands and Great Britain, export coal values were maintained at relatively higher levels than pithead sales prices. In Great
Britain, export values in 1936 were higher than their 1929 level.
These variations are to be explained to some extent by technical
factors, such as changes in the composition of export coal (by
types of fuel or by regional markets served), the effects of transportation rates, etc. On the whole, however, it may be said that
where the spread widens between the pithead prices of raw coal
and its export values at the frontier, in terms of national currencies, this is a fair measure of the interplay of currency factors
and of export subsidies in the drive for foreign markets.
— 202 —
FIG. III. — EXPORT PRICES OF COAL PER TON, 1927-1936
(In national currencies)
(1929 = 100)
I30-1
1
120
1
40H
1
27
28
1
1
1
1
1
,
1
—
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1929
30
31
32
33
34-
35
36
_ _ _ _ _ _ Belgium
• Czechoslovakia
France
_____ ____ Germany
Netherlands
H H M H « » Poland
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ united Kingdom
To assess their competitive effects internationally, the export
values of coal (at the various national frontiers) have been converted
to a common currency (British) 1 in table IV; their trends as recalculated are shown in figure IV. This table and chart show that
the export values for Great Britain, Germany and Poland in
particular followed fairly similar movements until 1931. After 1931,
striking changes took place in the trends of export price movements
in the different countries. The chief influence which initiated these
divergencies was the devaluation of the British pound in September
1931, the effects of which appear sharply in the changing levels of
export values for 1932. In all countries, except Germany, the level
1
For this purpose the £ sterling is used because of the important position
of Great Britain as a coal exporter, the common practice of basing coal
quotations on the £ sterling price, and the profound readjustments of export
prices resulting from devaluation of British currency in 1931.
— 203 —
of export prices in terms of £ sterling was pushed upward, while
British coal export prices barely changed. Germany, however,
met the British devaluation and its threat to her export coal trade
by resorting to particularly drastic price reductions (the average
prices of such exports in 1932 dropped to 65 per cent, of the corresponding level in 1929). It was the only country whose coal exports
sold for less per ton, in terms of British currency, during 1932
than in 1931. After 1932, furthermore, the average export values
of Germany's coal shipments continued to fall steadily to ever
lower levels. In Poland, despite some rise in 1932, average export
prices fell steadily thereafter until 1935, and thus widened the
pre-existing spread from British prices. Belgium and the Netherlands after their initial rise in export values per ton in 1932, progressively lowered the prices of their export coal; following the
devaluation of the belga in 1935, Belgium was able to cut average
export prices until in 1936 they were below those of Great Britain.
TABLE IV. — EXPORT PRICES OF COAL PER METRIC TON
(F.O.B.
PORT OF EXPORT)
(In £ sterling)
Belgium
£ s.
d.
1927.
1928.
1929.
1930.
1931.
1932.
1933.
1934.
1935.
1936.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
16 1 %
13 93/4
16 5%,
16 814
15 2 %
19 10
19 914
18 9 %
16 11 y 2
16 3
1927.
1928.
1929.
1930.
1931.
1932.
1933.
1934.
1935.
1936.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
98.1
84.0
100.0
101.5
92.5
120.7
114.2
114.5
103.2
98.9
Czechoslovakia
France
Germany
Netherlands
£'s sterling
(at rate of exchange fo r each yearj
£ s.
£ s.
1
0
19
17
17
19
1 3
1 2
1 0
19
17
d.
2y 2
2%
2%
9%
5
6
73/4
01/4
0%
0
d.
Indices,
117.4
111.6
100.0
103.3
112.8
136.6
131.6
116.3
110.7
98.8
£ s.
d.
1 4 2y 4 1 2 oy 4
19 43/4
1 1 5y 4
19 5
1 1 5y 2
1 1 93/4 1 0 23/ 4
1 1 113/4
18 7
1 4 4y4
17 53/ 4
1 4 8y 2
16 23/4
1 6
4
15 43/4
1 10 1V4
15 5y 2
15 i y 2
112.7
99.9
100.0
101.7
102.4
113.5
115.1
122.7
140.3
1 929 =
£ s.
1
1
1
1
1
d.
is
5y2
16
19
0
18
2
1
1
0
19
9
5
7y 4
II3/4
103/ 4
11 y4
2
734
6y 4
Poland
£ s.
d.
14 4
12 11
12 8y 2
12 4
12 3 y 4
13 i y 2
12 5y 4
11 11 y 2
11 4
11 9 y 4
United
Kingdom
£ s.
d.
17 53/4
15 4 y 4
15 10
16 4 y 4
16 0
16 0
15 93/ 4
15 10
16 1
16 8y 2
100
113.4
99.9
100.0
104.2
95.7
90.0
83.6
79.3
79.6
77.6
95.1
86.3
100.0
106.1
97.6
117.9
113.0
109.0
106.3
100.5
112.8
101.6
100.0
97.1
96.6
103.3
97.9
94.1
89.2
92.6
110.4
97.0
100.0
103.3
101.0
101.0
• 99.9
100.0
101.6
105.5
— 204 —
FIG. IV. — EXPORT PRICES OF COAL PER TON, 1 9 2 7 - 1 9 3 6
(In £'s sterling)
(1929 =
Belgium
Czechoslovakia
France
Germany
100)
.
Netherlands
»4. + «»» + »»+ Poland
^ ^ — — — United Kingdom
French export values per ton in terms of £ sterling moved rapidly
upward after 1931, and until the devaluation of the franc in 1936.
No effort was made by France to overcome the effects of British
devaluation by lowering export prices. Attention was exclusively
directed, instead, toward protecting the French coal industry
from the flood of imports made possible by the greatly decreased
export prices of British and German coal as expressed in French
francs. This took the form of import quotas and duties, as described
in Chapter VII, and served to retain a larger share of the domestic
markets for French mines than otherwise would have been the case.
To sum up, despite the growing control of export shipments after
1931 through agreements, quotas, prohibitions, etc., the pattern of
coal prices in the European coal trade was subjected to considerable
recasting as between the countries concerned. It would be impos-
— 205 —
sible, however, to determine how far the altered differentials in price
have influenced the shares of the total trade obtained by the various
countries, and how far these shares have been determined by the
artificial devices of control described in Chapter VII. All that
can be done is to bring together whatever data are readily available
on volume of exports with a view to seeing what light, if any, they
can throw on this question.
Table V and figure V present respectively the data on the volume
of coal exports from each country since 1927, and the trend of
such exports. From a comparison of figures III, IV and V, it appears
that the total tonnage and the average values of coal exports from
Great Britain and Germany, the two largest exporting countries,
both dropped considerably from 1927 to 1932. Beginning with
1933, but especially in 1934, Germany's export tonnage rose substantially, accompanied by a particularly sharp fall in average
export values. Great Britain's export tonnage, in contrast, was
practically the same in 1934 as in 1932, though its average export
values fell somewhat.
These divergencies strongly suggest that, the effects of preferential
trade agreements notwithstanding, the continued low level of
German export prices after 1931 acted to promote her exports of
coal. In fact, Germany's ability to negotiate such agreements was
unquestionably facilitated by the price concessions which she made.
In 1935 and 1936 German export prices continued at about the levels
of 1934, but the tonnage of exports increased sharply, reaching a
level approximately 6 per cent, greater in 1936 than in 1929.
The continued rapid rise of coal exports in 1935 and 1936 includes,
however, the considerable addition to German exports resulting
from the transfer of the Saar in 1935. Besides this factor, the volume
of German exports in 1935 and 1936 was stimulated by political
developments (particularly the application of sanctions to Italy)
which obscure the operation of prices and costs. For the same political reasons, British export volumes were seriously affected in an
adverse way, which explains in part why the level of British coal
exports was lower in both years as compared with 1934.
The trends of export tonnages and of export prices do not, for
other countries, lend themselves even to as much analysis in terms
of relative price levels as is possible in the case of Germany and
Great Britain. Belgium's export volume tended to rise considerably, from 1929 to 1936, despite relatively high levels of price in
terms of British currency; this might be explained in part by the
advantage which Belgium has owing to the quality of her coal,
— 206 —
especially for domestic purposes (anthracite) and the coking coals
which are needed in the metallurgical industry of France. Poland's
export volumes fell in each year after 1931 (except 1934) in the face
of export prices which also dropped lower (except 1936). Equally
inconclusive results are yielded by the data which relate to France,
the Netherlands and Czechoslovakia. As regards France in particular, it should be kept in mind that this country's export shipments of coal were always very limited and have become insignificant since the transfer of the Saar to Germany in 1935. The most
significant reaction of France to the devaluation of the £ sterling
in 1931 was to introduce the quota system, limiting total imports,
which has since been maintained. For France, therefore, the chief
question has been to protect home markets against the competition
of foreign coal. Little or no efforts were made before devaluation in the autumn of 1936 to expand the now negligible export
trade.
TABLE V.
QUANTITIES OF COAL EXPORTED, 1927-1936
(Excluding bunker loadings by foreign trade vessels)
Belgium
United
Kingdom
Total
for 7
countries
11,347
12,886
13,650
11,862
13,522
10,069
9,386
9,968
8,588
8,145
69,077
67,856
77,917
71,627
58,280
53,960
53,368
54,000
52,063
47,226
122,705
121,890
136,247
125,055
112,256
95,439
92,456
97,609
97,679
94,712
83.1
94.4
100.0
86.9
99.1
73.8
68.8
73.0
62.9
59.7
88.7
87.1
100.0
91.9
74.8
69.3
68.5
69.3
66.8
60.6
90.1
89.5
100.0
91.8
82.4
70.0
67.9
71.6
71.7
69.5
Czecho- France
Ger- Netherslova(a)
many (5) lands Poland
kia
(a)
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
. .
2,968
4,213
3,790
3,962
5,467
3,490
3,588
3,811
4,282
4,735
1,885
1,670
1,854
1,706
1,653
1,368
1,369
1,437
1,270
1,318
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
. .
78.3
111.2
100.0
104.5
144.9
92.1
94.7
100.6
113.0
124.9
101.7
90.1
100.0
92.0
89.2
73.8
73.8
77.5
68.5
71.1
Metric
4,325
4,856
5,060
4,067
3,527
3,162
2,973
3,017
1,216
882
(b)
tons
(000's
26,949
23,489
27,027
24,505
22,918
18,312
18,444
21,937
26,774
28,650
omitted)
6,406
7,257
6,687
6,723
6,593
4,925
3,616
3,527
3,168
3,539
Indices 1929 = 100
85.5
96.0
100.0
80.4
69.7
62.5
58.8
59.6
24.0
17.4
(a) Including t h e Saar, 1927-1934.
(6) Excluding t h e Saar, 1927-1934.
99.7
86.9
100.0
90.7
84.8
67.8
68.2
81.2
99.1
106.0
95.8
108.5
100.0
100.5
98.6
73.7
54.1
52.7
47.4
52.9
— 207 —
FIG. V. — EXPORTED QUANTITIES OF COAL, 1 9 2 7 - 1 9 3 6
(Excluding bunker loadings by foreign trade vessels)
(1929 = 100)
ISO-i
1
/
/
/
/
\
/
\
/
\
/
\
/
/
/
\
I
i
IOTV
IVA/
90
\
*\
Sw
H
% .
ys
t
\"
/
M
vO
^
<So-
4
/
y
\
\ ^^'
*^^
«''
*
//
f
/
/
y
i
y
/
/
*f
>
*.<-
/.i
ùi—
M •
U
M
-.\
^
—
'S
s
t
••
«
•
•
oo-
\
'*..
*v
1027
20
1929
30
Belgium
Czechoslovakia
France
Germany
III.
31
32
33
—.. — . — .
34
35
Netherlands
++•.*.•...,+
Poland
_
United Kingdom
_
^
36
PRICES, TOTAL COSTS OF PRODUCTION AND WAGE COSTS
The changes in coal prices, described above, from 1929 to 1936
could not have taken place without serious adjustments in costs. As
— 208 —
TABLE VI.
COMMERCIALLY
TOTAL COST OF PRODUCTION
DISPOSABLE
COAL
FOR
PER
METRIC TON OF
SELECTED
COUNTRIES,
1927-1936
Belgium (a)
(a)
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
(b)
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
National
Czechoslovakia (6)
Frs.
Kö.
74.9
75.4
73.9
76.3
74.9
71.1
66.0
61.9
60.7
57.2
94.6
88.2
100.0
105.3
89.6
77.2
72.7
58.8
57.7
United
Kingdom (c)
currencies
145.84
135.92
154.14
162.23
138.06
119.02
112.04
90.71
88.88
Indices
Poland
1929 =
Zloty
s.
d.
19.40
20.89
18.16
17.60
14.92
13.18
12.85
12.38
15 4
i 3 i i y2
13 4
13 6 y 4
13 6 %
i 3 5y 2
i3
iy4
12 9
i 2 9y4
i 3 5y2
100.0
107.7
93.6
90.7
76.9
67.9
66.2
63.8
115.0
104.6
100.0
101.4
101.4
100.9
98.3
95.7
95.9
100.9
100
101.4
102.0
100.0
103.2
101.4
96.2
89.3
83.8
82.1
77.4
(a) Belgium: Including social welfare contributions.
(b) Czechoslovakia: Covers total wages (wages in cash and kind, allowances, etc.), employers' contributions to social insurance funds, heating, lighting, electricity and other
power, lubricants, timber, explosives, fuses, iron and steel, building materials, supervisors'
salaries and employers' contributions.
(c) United Kingdom: Covers wages (including subsistence and other allowances to lowpaid day-wage workers), stores and timber, other costs, royalties; other costs include
management, salaries, insurances, repairs, office and general expenses, contributions to
Miners' Welfare Fund, remuneration of working proprietors, depreciation, etc. They do
noi include certain items such as interest on debentures or other loans, bank charges,
amortisation and taxation which the Mining Association of Great Britain estimate to
amount to 3d. per ton or more. As regards proceeds of miners' coal sold at less than market
value, these proceeds are treated as a deduction from mining costs.
shown above, both pithead and export prices were readjusted in
most countries between 1929 and 1936, the heaviest falls in pithead
prices tending to occur where devaluation did not take place or
where it was delayed. The relative force of the drop as between
pithead and export prices also varied from country to country.
Although separate data are not readily available for national trends
in the delivered sales prices of coal for home market deliveries,
such data as do exist point to a considerable decline of the price
levpls after 1929, the amount of the drop depending on industrial
— 209 —
conditions in each country, the degree of cartelisation in the coal
industry, Government price policies and other factors.
FIG. VI.
TOTAL COST PER TON OF COMMERCIALLY DISPOSABLE COAL,
1927-1936
(In national currencies)
(1929 = 100)
I20r:
SO-I
27
1
1
28
•
= »
1
1
1
1
1929 3 0
Belgium
Czechoslovakia
1
1
31
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
32
33
34.
35
36
• • • • • • + • • + Poland
— — — United Kingdom
In short, a contracting volume of demand by both home and
foreign markets was reflected in falling levels of coal prices; so that
lower income per ton of coal mined necessitated lower costs of
production. This is not to imply that efforts to lower mining costs
come only with falling sales prices, or that decreased sales prices
may not result from lowered mining costs. As a general conclusion
however, it may be said that in the price-cost movements after 1929,
the fall in the level of coal values, both foreign and domestic,
preceded the reduction in mining costs. This conclusion is borne
out by the comparative trends of average total costs and average
values per ton for each of four countries in which a series of
costs is available—namely, Great Britain, Czechoslovakia, Belgium
and Poland. National data on the total costs for each year are
shown in table VI, and the trends of such costs in figure VI,
where curves express the ratio of annual costs to those of 1929.
As already pointed out, many elements in addition to labour
CR. I.
14
— 210 —
charges enter into the pithead cost of coal as well as into its
delivered prices*. It should also be noted that the variations
of production costs between mines and districts depend not only
on wages but also, among other things, on such factors as
(a) natural difficulties of mining; (b) conditions and age of equipment; (c) size of operations; (d) integration of operations;
(e) efficiency of management; and (/) length of operation (days
per week, month and year). The number of idle days due to
lack of demand is of particular importance because of the weight
in total costs of overhead charges which continue whether the mine
is idle or active, is raising much or little coal. The weight of these
fixed charges varies from mine to mine and from district to district.
Furthermore, it was also seen in Chapter VII that labour costs
at the pithead are often a relatively small element in the delivered
price of coal. But of the items which do enter into the cost of production of coal at the pithead, wages constitute by far the largest
item. In the underground coal mines of Europe, during recent
years, the share of labour in all mining costs has varied from about
two-fifths to over two-thirds. In bituminous underground mines
of the United States, labour costs generally average about threefifths of total mining costs. In strip-pit mining, where the mechanical factor is more important, labour costs would probably range
from one-third to one-half of total costs for the workings equipped
with the best modern machinery.
It is therefore natural that when cost reductions become urgent,
wages afford the greatest opportunity for savings as they form by far
the largest proportion of total costs. Furthermore, wage cost reductions through the lowering of wage rates, often may take effect with
least delay, while many other cost reductions, as, for example,
capital charges, royalties, rents, taxes, etc., even when they are
capable of being realised, require readjustments which take time.
Still other items, such as supplies, materials, power, equipment, etc.,
have their market prices established in relation to general economic
conditions, and are not particularly responsive to the lower cost
requirements of the coal industry.
1
The cost elements of mining coal may be briefly listed here as follows:
(a) Wages and salaries (for hewing, loading and excavating coal; timbering'
and " dead work "; hauling and hoisting; pumping, ventilating; maintenance
and repairs; sizing, screening, washing; weighing; supervisory and clerical
work; etc.); (b) Supplies (timber, explosives, iron and steel, repair materials,
lubricants, etc.); (c) power and fuel; (d) taxes on mine property; (e) insurance ; (/) royalties ; (g) depreciation (on plant and equipment) ; (h) depletion
(of mining property) ; (¿) social charges (insurance contributions by employer,
etc.), social services and welfare work.
— 211 —
Reductions of labour cost may be accomplished by one or both
of two principal methods—increase in output per man-day and
decrease in wage rates. Improvement in output per day has been
a rather continuous characteristic of the coal industry for many
decades—some periods registering greater gains than others. The
period since 1929 has been one of very marked progress in productivity for all European countries except Great Britain, where
the improvement, although steady, has been relatively small.
Generally speaking, the rise in man-shift output is a composite of
many factors including increased use of machinery, closing down
of less efficient mines and sections of mines, discharging the less
efficient employees, improving the managerial functions of planning
and co-ordination, etc.
National data on the movements of labour productivity between
1927 and 1936 are summarised in table VII (man-shift output in
metric tons) and in figure VII (trend lines of man-shift output).
It will be observed, first, that output per man-shift varies widely
among the countries covered by these data. As already pointed
TABLE VII.
OUTPUT PER MAN PER SHIFT OR DAY, 1 9 2 7 - 1 9 3 6
(a)
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
. . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
0.513
0.554
0.576
0.575
0.591
0.609
0.663
0.735
0.775
(0.794)
0.938
0.958
1.006
0.991
1.020
1.028
1.128
1.166
1.213
1.311
(b)
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
. . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
89.1
96.2
100.0
99.8
102.6
105.7
115.1
127.6
134.5
(137.8)
93.2
95.2
100.0
98.5
101.4
102.2
112.1
115.9
120.6
130.3
France
Germany
(Prussia)
Nether-
II
CzechoBelgium slovakia
X
Poland
United
Kingdom
1.14
1.32
1.32
1.31
1.37
1.50
1.57
1.65
1.76
1.77
1.191
1.267
1.264
1.253
1.370
1.410
1.589
1.704
1.774
1.839
1.047
1.081
1.102
1.098
1.098
1.117
1.142
1.166
1.186
1.196
86.4
100.0
100.0
99.2
103.8
113.6
118.9
125.0
133.3
134.1
94.2
100.2
100.0
99.1
108.4
111.6
125.7
134.8
140.3
145.5
95.0
98.1
100.0
99.6
99.6
101.4
103.6
105.8
107.6
108.5
Metric tons
0.590
0.640
0.691
0.688
0.718
0.776
0.824
0.848
0.862
(0.833)
1.055
1.102
1.172
1.226
1.321
1.422
1.473
1.480
1.497
1.516
In dices 19Í 9 = 100
85.4
92.7
100.0
99.6
103.9
112.3
119.3
122.8
124.8
(120.5)
90.0
94.0
100.0
104.6
112.7
121.3
125.7
126.3
127.7
129.4
i The figures differ slightly from those in table XII, Chapter V, owing to differences in
methods of computation.
— 212 —
FIG. VII.
OUTPUT PER MAN PER SHIFT OR DAY,
(1929 =
1927-1936
100)
150
ICO
27
28
———"—.
- • :
,
—^— •
1929
30
Belgium
Czechoslovakia
France
Germany
31
32
33
. _ . _ . _ ?
+.(<••«...,••
34-
35
30
Netherlands
Poland
- United Kingdom
out, these variations reflect differences in natural difficulties of
mining such as thickness, depth and pitch of seams, character of
roof and bottom of seams, distance to the face from mine openings,
as well as methods of mining employed, degree of mechanisation
in cutting, loading, hauling, etc., and many other factors. Variations in productivity between individual mining districts within
any of these countries are often greater than the average variations
between countries as a whole 1.
The strong upward movement of labour productivity after 1929
shows the success of the various national efforts made to reduce the
wage costs item through increased output per man-shift. In the
light of the sales price data examined earlier, the striking rise in
labour productivity may well be interpreted as reflecting the
pressure to offset lower sales prices by lower labour costs. In
1
See Chapter V I I , pp. 167-171.
— 213 —
1935-1936, five of the seven countries considered here had improved
their output per man-day by 30 per cent, or more (Germany,
Belgium, the Netherlands, Poland, Czechoslovakia), while France
had improved by 25 per cent. Great Britain's efforts, although
the least effective, succeeded in raising man-shift output between
1929 and 1936 by 8.5 per cent. It should be stressed, however,
that the figures shown relate to output per man-shift and do not
take into account changes which may have occurred in the average
length of the actual working day.
TABLE VIII. —
AVERAGE EARNINGS PER MAN-SHIFT OR DAY,
IN SELECTED COUNTRIES
CzechoBelgium (a) slovakia
(6)
NetherGermany lands
(e)
(Prussia) (State
mines)
(d)
France
(c)
National
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
Frs.
40.91
41.57
48.78
51.91
44.04
38.01
36.64
36.41
35.69
(38.46)
83.9
85.2
100.0
106.4
90.3
77.9
75.1
74.6
73.2
(78.8)
Poland
(/)
Frs.
RM.
Gulden
Zloty
43.75
45.18
46.09
46.31
47.48
46.21
45.57
44.10
44.58
44.74
31.45
31.19
34.31
36.98
35.94
33.12
32.79
32.67
32.50
(36.11)
7.95
8.47
8.80
8.95
8.25
6.94
7.00
7.07
7.18
7.20
5.22
5.29
5.50
5.61
5.43
5.00
4.86
4.78
4.71
4.71
7.90
8.71
9.67
10.31
10.24
9.53
8.94
8.47
8.47
8.45
94.9
96.2
100.0
102.0
98.7
90.9
88.4
'86.9
85.6
85.6
81.7
90.1
100.0
106.6
105.9
98.6
92.5
87.6
87.6
87.4
94.9
98.0
100.0
100.5
103.0
100.3
98.9
95.7
96.7
97.1
Indices
United
Kingdom
(g)
currencies
Kê.
(b)
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1927-1936
1929 =
91.7
90.9
100.0
107.8
104.5
96.5
95.6
95.2
94.7
(105.2)
90.3
96.3
100.0
101.7
93.8
78.9
79.5
80.3
81.6
81.8
10
5%
9 sy 4
9 7y 4
9 $%,
9
9
9
9
9
10
6%
6%
6
ey 4
7%
5
100
109.1
100.9
100.0
100.9
99.6
99.6
98.9
99.1
100.4
108.5
(a) Belgium: " Gross wages " per day, excluding allowances in cash and kind.
(b) Czechoslovakia: Including bonuses, payments in kind, etc. Excluding employers'
contributions.
(c) France: Cash earnings including cash bonuses, premiums and family allowances.
Excluding all allowances in kind.
(d) Germany: Including workers' contributions and payments in kind. Excluding
employers' contributions.
(e) Netherlands : Wages plus allowances.
(/) Poland: Including workers' contributions to social insurance, overtime, family
allowances, payments for holidays, and free coal. The figures for Poland were supplied by
the Polish Government.
(g) United Kingdom: Cash earnings plus allowances in kind.
— 214 —
FIG. V i l i . — AVERAGE EARNINGS PER MAN-SHIFT OR DAY, 1 9 2 7 - 1 9 3 6
(In national currencies)
(1929 = 100)
I20l
óoj
27
1
1
28
1
1
I929
1
1
30
,
1
1
-J..--1
4-.—-I - - I
31
32
33
——— —— Belgium
^ ^ _ — .
— Czechoslovakia
.—.—.. . . . . . . . . . . . France
———
+ + + + + Poland
1
34
r^
35
1
i
36
Germany
Netherlands
United Kingdom
The increases in labour productivity noted above were added
to reductions in wage rates which lowered labour costs still further.
Although detailed data are not available as to changes in the
schedules of wage rates, the figures on average money earnings
per man-shift are illuminating (these figures also reflect part-time
or over-time work as well as wage rates). Table VIII shows the
movements of average earnings in national currencies ; the trends
are given in figure VIII. It is clear from this table and chart
that improved productivity per man-shift was not reflected in
increased money earnings per day (except in the case of Great
Britain, 1936). In Great Britain it is seen that average daily
earnings (per employed worker) remained practically constant from
1929 to 1935, and then rose considerably in 1936. In France and
Czechoslovakia, the fall of average daily earnings for the period
under review was moderate, totalling only 5 per cent, for France
(until 1935) and 3 per cent, for Czechoslovakia (until 1936). In
contrast to what happened in Great Britain, France and Czechoslovakia was the considerable decline of average daily earnings
after 1929 in Germany and Poland, as well as in Belgium and the
Netherlands. This decline is all the more significant in that it
was these four countries where man-shift output rose most strongly
during the period under review.
— 215 —
It should be clearly understood that the figures refer only to
average daily earnings of colliery workers in employment. Only
indirect inferences could be drawn, therefore, as to average weekly,
monthly or yearly earnings, which depend on the number of
days worked as well as on wage rates per day ; or as to the purchasing power of average earnings, which is a function of cost of living.
No such inferences will, however, be drawn in this part of the
Report; these questions are dealt with in Vol. II of the present
Report. All that need be said here is that the interplay of social
and economic forces between 1929 and 1936 was such that the
wage rates paid to coal miners did not show the effects that might
be expected under more " normal " conditions from a strong rise
in labour productivity.
Wide divergencies in the trends of productivity, on the one
hand, and of money earnings per man-day, on the other, must
obviously reflect themselves in great changes of wage costs per
ton. National figures for such costs are shown in table IX in
terms of the national currencies; the corresponding trends in
figure IX. An examination of these data reveals a wide range
of national variations. In Great Britain, wage costs tended slowly
downward between 1929 and 1935 and rose sharply in 1936.
In the other European countries wage costs pointed sharply
downward between 1929 and 1935-1936, most of the drop
being concentrated between 1931 and 1933 or 1934. By the end
of the period, however, wage costs had seemingly come to the
end of their decline.
In brief, the data presented above point to the depressive
effects upon prices, wage costs, and wage rates which resulted
from the reduction in the demand for coal between 1929 and
1936. Whether or not other costs were reduced as drastically
or more drastically than wage costs, cannot be ascertained. However, a comparison of trends of wage costs and of coal prices
may be suggestive. The relationships of these items for the
different countries are shown in table X and figure X, where the
wage costs are expressed as a percentage of average pithead
values. In four countries (Germany, Belgium, Great Britain,
Czechoslovakia), the proportion of wage cost to average value
tended to decline somewhat after 1929. In two countries (France
and the Netherlands), it has tended to rise moderately. In Poland,
it rose between 1929 and 1932, which is to be explained chiefly
by the fact that the drop in price was more precipitate than the
fall in wages but moved downward from 1933 to 1936. But since
— 216 —
TABLE IX.
WAGE COST PER METRIC TON OF COAL
IN SELECTED COUNTRIES 1 9 2 7 - 1 9 3 6
Belgium (a)
Czechoslovakia
(6)
(a)
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
National
Poland
(/)
KÖ.
Francs
RM.
Gulden
Zloty
79.72
75.10
84.63
90.19
74.45
62.40
55.26
49.56
46.05
45.34
46.67
45.82
46.74
46.23
44.94
40.40
37.82
36.74
34.13
53.25
48.73
49.83
53.74
49.88
42.64
39.79
38.52
37.70
7.54
7.68
7.51
7.31
6.26
4.89
4.75
4.78
4.80
4.75
4.72
4.03
4.18
4.29
3.98
3.25
3.05
2.88
2.62
2.58
7.44
7.65
8.49
9.24
8.28
7.66
6.48
5.65
5.43
5.12
112.9
96.4
100.0
102.6
95.2
77.8
73.0
68.9
62.7
61.7
87.63
90.11
100.0
108.83
97.53
90.22
76.32
66.55
63.96
60.31
94.2
88.7
100.0
106.6
88.0
73.7
65.3
58.6
54.4
99.0
101.9
100.0
102.0
100.9
98.1
88.2
82.5
80.2
74.5
United
Kingdom
(8)
currencies
Francs
(b)
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
NetherFrance Germany lands (e)
(Prussia) (State
(c)
mines)
(d)
s.
10
9
d.
5%
4
9 0fc
9 2
9 1
8 11
8 7 3/4
8 5%
8 5
9 oy4
Indices 1929 = 100
106.9
97.8
100.0
107.8
100.1
85.6
79.9
77.3
75.7
100.4
102.3
100.0
97.3
83.4
65.1
63.2
63.6
63.9
63.2
115.9
103.4
100.0
101.6
100.7
98.9
95.9
93.9
93.2
100.0
(a) Belgium: " Gross wages ", excluding allowances in cash and kind.
(6) Czechoslovakia: Total wages, including wages in cash and kind, allowances, etc.
Excluding employers' contributions.
(c) France: Cash earnings including cash bonuses, premiums and family allowances.
Excluding all allowances in kind.
(ei) Germany: Excluding employers' contributions. Including allowances in kind.
(e) Netherlands: Including Social Insurance (Workers) and family allowances.
(/) Poland : See footnote (/) to table VIII.
(g) United Kingdom: Including in addition to wages, miners' contributions to social
insurance and occupational charges, but excluding miners' coal and other allowances and
employers' contributions.
total costs are not available in detail, no definite conclusions can
be drawn as to the movements of margins of profit or loss or as to
the movement of total earnings or deficits of mining enterprises.
IV.
SUMMARY AND
CONCLUSIONS
• In the preceding discussion of sales prices, mining costs, productivity and wages, it has been noted that many adjustments of
these elements took place between 1929 and 1936 and especially
after 1931, in the seven coal-producing countries which were con-
— 217 —
FIG. IX.
I20T
50H
27
WAGE COST PER TON OF COAL, 1 9 2 7 - 1 9 3 6
(In national currencies)
(1929 = 100)
1
1
26
———— — —
= = = »
• ••••
• "-——
1
1
1929
1
I
30
Belgium
Czechoslovakia
France
Germany
1
1
3»
-i
1
32
1
1
33
•—»
•••••.••••
1
1
1
34
1
1
35
36
Netherlands
Poland
United Kingdom
sidered. The rapid decline in demand resulted in intensified efforts
on the part of coal producers in each country to retain their
volume of output or to hold their relative shares of the coal trade.
In large measure, these efforts expressed themselves in price adjustments : drastic for the export trade, but substantial also for home
market deliveries. In the process of price reduction, costs had to
be brought down to adjust themselves to the lower price levels.
The reductions in total costs were accounted for mainly by the
wage-cost item, and were realised partly through improved
performance of labour, partly through lowered wage rates.
It would thus appear that the competitive lowering of coal
prices after 1929 was facilitated to a large degree by the flexibility
of the wage-cost factor. And certainly part of this competitive
lowering of sales prices was made possible by the breakdown of
wage rates. Evidence as to changes in other labour standards,
such as the length of the working day, safety, health, and welfare
provisions will be presented in Vol. II of this Report. So far as
prices and costs are effective in determining the tonnages sold by
particular districts to particular consumers, competition between
— 218 —
TABLE X.
RELATION OF WAGE COSTS PER METRIC TON OF COAL
TO AVERAGE PITHEAJ) VALUE PER TON, IN SELECTED
COUNTRIES,
1927-1936
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
FIG. X.
Belgium
Czechoslovakia
France
Germany
Netherlands
53.1
57.6
52.9
58.0
60.1
57.8
57.6
57.8
48.1
41.4
43.1
41.5
43.3
43.5
43.4
42.4
42.0
41.6
38.4
47.2
48.5
44.9
47.6
49.9
47.9
48.5
48.8
48.3
53.0
53.1
50.0
49.3
48.3
44.2
45.3
46.5
46.7
45.6
49.5
50.6
46.9
46.2
51.4
58.1
61.4
61.8
53.4
49.1
Poland
United
Kingdom
42.47
48.38
46.81
49.68
47.23
45.82
46.21
43.87
70.3
71.4
65.9
66.1
65.8
65.5
64.9
64.3
63.3
63.0
RELATION OF WAGE COST PER METRIC TON OF COAL TO
AVERAGE PITHEAD VALUE PER TON, 1927-1936
IIOT
(OO
27
•
,2»
I929
30
- ^ — •»' Belgium
e Czechoslovakia
.France
Germany
31
32.
33
34
35
36
.__.
_ _ Netherlands
, 4 » + t 4 » t t « Poland
_ _ _ _ _ _ United Kingdom
mining districts for the home and foreign markets has to a large
degree rested on ability to compete through labour costs. In the
— 219 —
competition between countries for foreign markets, a large part
has also been played by the ability to make the domestic consumer
pay in part for the cheap coal shipments to foreign lands.
The depressing effects upon prices, costs and wage rates of the
unbalanced condition of supply and demand in the coal industry
during a period of falling demand are thus clear. What has
happened since the demand for coal began to rise ? In 1936 the
total output of the seven countries discussed was approximately
87 per cent, of the output of 1929, as compared with 75 per cent.
in 1932. Prices, costs and wage rates, however, have reflected
but little corresponding increase. In national currencies, pithead
values in Great Britain were somewhat higher in 1936 than in
1932. In Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands, however, they
were somewhat lower while in France (1935), Poland (1935) and
Czechoslovakia, a good deal lower. In terms of £'s sterling, export
prices at the frontier were somewhat higher for British coal in 1936
than in 1932, and for French coal (1935) a good deal higher. For
Germany, Belgium, Poland, the Netherlands and Czechoslovakia, in
contrast, export prices of 1936 were well below the level of 1932. As
for wage costs between 1932 and 1936, they moved insignificantly
higher in Great Britain, dropped somewhat in Germany and fell
appreciably in Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Poland and Czechoslovakia. As for the tendency of wage rates after 1932, the figures
on average earnings per man-shift would indicate that wage rates
were in large measure insensitive in their response to the remarkable
rise in labour productivity; it is impossible to determine, however,
how far other factors may have influenced the situation.
It may thus be said that increased labour productivity and
stationary or falling wage rates have acted as a sort of competitive
shock absorber in the intensified struggle for coal markets during
recent years. It should be kept in mind, however, that the improvement in the coal trade since 1932 has unquestionably benefited
colliery workers in other ways; above all, by reducing the numbers
of unemployed workers, by substituting full time or overtime for
part-time employment, by increasing total family income, by
making it feasible in some cases to shorten the work-week while
maintaining weekly earnings, etc. These questions are considered
in Vol. II of this Report.
CHAPTER IX
THE MOVEMENT TOWARDS INTEGRATION AND REGULATION
As pointed out in Chapter I, tendencies towards integration,
combination and public regulation in the coal-mining industry
had made headway in many countries before the World War.
These tendencies were strengthened between 1919 and 1929
under the influence of the factors which were giving rise to " surplus
capacity ", on the one hand, and which threatened labour standards,
on the other. The same tendencies were still further stimulated
after 1929 by the economic difficulties resulting from the Great
Depression and by the movement towards economic nationalism.
In most countries to-day, the coal-mining industry has reached a
high degree of integration and is characterised by complex systems
of economic supervision and control. Within the last few years,
the beginnings of an international mechanism for regulating
competition between coal exporting countries have also emerged.
This general trend towards economic regulation and control has
a direct bearing on the various questions considered in preceding
chapters, such as inter-district and international differentials,
volume and variability of demand for coal, surplus capacity, and,
as a result, bears indirectly upon the maintenance and improvement
of labour standards. The schemes and arrangements which are
in force vary considerably from country to country. It is out of the
question to examine them in detail. All that can be done here is
to summarise the main features of these various schemes in the
principal coal-mining countries. The extent of financial integration
and combination will be sketched first, followed by an analysis
of. the national systems of regulation; the steps taken towards
international agreements in the industry will then be surveyed.
I. — THE EXTENT OF INTEGRATION X
Although the two often go together, it is convenient to distinguish
here between horizontal integration (of collieries among themselves)
1
For the most part, the analysis which follows is based on papers submitted
to the World Power Conference of 1936: G. KNEPPER: Organisation of the
— 221 —
and vertical integration (of collieries with other industrial works).
Horizontal integration may be measured by the proportion of
total coal output which is massed in the largest colliery undertakings; vertical integration may be measured by the proportion
of total coal output which is massed in enterprises that join the
control of collieries to that of iron and steel works, other metallurgical plants, electricity and gas supply stations, chemical works, etc.
Horizontal Integration
It is impossible to compare exactly, as between countries, the
levels of horizontal integration which coal mining has reached.
Average annual output per mine is no criterion because some
colliery undertakings operate a single mine, some a few mines,
others a great many mines. Average output per colliery undertaking
is an inadequate measure also ; for there is no necessary relationship
between large outputs and concentrated ownership or between
small outputs and diffused ownership. Even if these two measures
were roughly acceptable, statistical difficulties would still stand in
the way of their practical use, for there are large gaps in the existing
data as to the number of mines and the number of undertakings.
No more can be done here, therefore, than to venture a few estimates
of how far, in a few countries, the output of coal is massed in a few
mines or undertakings and how far it is diffused among many.
Production, Processing and Distribution
of German Coal and Coal
Products;
H E U B E L : Organisation
of the Production,
Processing and Distribution of
German Brown-Coal Products; B U R E A U OF M I N E S , China: Organisation of
the Production,
Processing and Distribution
of Coal and Coal
Products;
J . P . W I L L I A M S : Organisation
of the Production,
Processing and Distribution of Coal and Coal Products (United S t a t e s ) ; H . D E P E Y E R I M H O F F :
Organisation of Coal Production and Distribution in France; M I N E S D E P A R T MENT AND M I N I N G ASSOCIATION, Great B r i t a i n : Organisation of the Production
and Distribution of Coal; F . K. Th. VAN ITERSON : Organisation of the Production,
Processing and Distribution of Coal and Coal Products (Netherlands) ; ASSOCIATION OF M I N E O W N E R S
IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA: Organisation
of the
Production,
Processing and Distribution
of Coal and Coal Products; P . N . LATEGAN :
Organisation of the Production. Processing and Distribution
of Coal and Coal
Products (Union of South Africa).
W h e r e available, t h e annual reports of t h e Ministries,
Departments and
Commissariats of Mining h a v e also been drawn upon. Use has also been m a d e
of official enquiries into t h e coal-mining i n d u s t r y of certain countries, e.g.
the United States Senate Hearings, 1936, on Stabilization
of the Bituminous
Coal Mining Industry;
t h e Committee for E n q u i r i n g into t h e Production
and Marketing Conditions of t h e German National E c o n o m y , Die Deutsche
Kohlenwirtschaft,
1929; t h e Royal Commission (Great Britain) on t h e Coal
I n d u s t r y , 1925, Beport, Vol. I ; Enquête sur les conditions économiques et financières d'exploitation
des mines de combustible françaises (Annales des mines,
France, 1937); etc. Finally, a certain a m o u n t of d a t a h a s been taken from
the P.E.P. Beport on the British Coal Industry, 1936, a n d Le Conflit Contemporain des Houillères, 1936.
— 222 —
The United States
Particularly notable are diffused ownership and decentralised
control in the bituminous coal industries of the United States and
Great Britain 1. In the United States in 1935 there were as many
as 6,315 active bituminous mines of commercial size, with an average output of no more than 59,000 short tons of coal per mine. On
the other hand, a very large share of the output was raised by a
few hundred very large mines, while a very small share of the output came from many thousands of very small mines, as shown by
table I.
TABLE I.
DISTRIBUTION
OF BITUMINOUS COAL MINES IN
UNITED STATES BY TONNAGE OF ANNUAL OUTPUT,
Size of mine (in short tons)
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
Class
1-A (over 500,000) . .
1-B (200,000-500,000)
2 (100,000-200,000) .
3 (50.000-100,000)
.
4 (10,000-50,000) . .
5 (under 10,000)
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
THE
1935
Number of
mines
Average
output for year
(short tons)
Per cent.
of total
output
132
429
479
503
1,056
3,716
752,000
306,000
144,000
72,000
24,000
2,770
26.6
35.5
18.5
9.7
6.8
2.8
6,315
59,000
100.0
SOURCE: Computed from Minerals Year-Booh, 1937, p. 819.
In brief, it is seen that as much as four-fifths of the bituminous
coal, in volume, was mined by a thousand or more of the collieries,
and only one-fifth of the output by some five thousand collieries.
The wide diffusion of ownership is evidenced most strikingly by
the existence of nearly four thousand mines whose output averaged
less than 3,000 tons per mine per year 2. The tendency towards
concentration of output is brought out clearly by the existence of
a few huge collieries, less than 100 in number, each of which mined
a million or more tons yearly 3.
1
The ownership of anthracite mines in both of these countries is highly
concentrated.
2
These figures exclude the many thousands of so-called " wagon-mines"—
operated as a supplementary occupation by farmers exploiting convenient
outcrops on the soil—where output averages less than 1,000 tons a year.
3
Many of the larger mines are grouped under the ownership of immense
colliery undertakings, controlling several millions of tons of annual output.
Among the largest of these are the colliery afliliates which operate " captive "
— 223 —
In contrast to the widespread ownership of bituminous coal
mines in that country, the anthracite mines of the United States
(Eastern Pennsylvania) are held very closely, for well over fourfifths of their output is produced by not more than a dozen operating companies 1.
Great Britain
The number of bituminous and anthracite coal mines in active
exploitation in Great Britain in 1936 was 2,080. They raised, on
the average, 112,000 long tons of coal each and were grouped under
the ownership of about 1,200 colliery enterprises. In so far as
anthracite coal is concerned, two enterprises exploiting properties
in South Wales are responsible for nine-tenths of the national
output 2 . As for bituminous coal, about a third of the national
output in 1934 was concentrated in the largest of the colliery
undertakings, say 25 in number, each of which raised over two million tons a year 3. Thus, in Great Britain, as in the United States,
widespread ownership of coal mines arises out of the existence of a
large number of medium-sized and small-scale mines, which operate
side by side with a limited number of large-scale collieries. The
individual collieries are grouped, moreover, under the ownership
of a much smaller number of colliery undertakings, some of which
control many millions of tons of annual output 4.
mines on behalf of such enterprises as the United States Steel Corporation,
Bethlehem Steel Co., Union Pacific Railway, etc., and autonomous colliery
undertakings such as the Pittsburgh Coal Co., Peabody Coal Co., Pocahontas
Fuel Co., Carter Coal Co., Island Creek Coal Co., Continental Coal Co., Consolidation Coal Co., New River Co., etc.
1
Most of these companies are financially tied in with various railway
carriers. Cf. E. E. HUNT and others: What the Coal Commission Found, Baltimore, 1925, pp. 371-372.
2
The Amalgamated Anthracite Collieries have an annual output of about
4 million tons; the Welsh Anthracite Collieries have an annual output of
1.5 million tons. These two enterprises co-operate in their marketing policies
and have interlocking directorates.
3
Some of the largest bituminous colliery groups are the Powell Duffryn
Associated Collieries (with an annual capacity of over 15 million tons);
Yorkshire Amalgamated Collieries; the Fife Coal Company; Lambton, Hetton
and Joicey Collieries; Horden Collieries; Asliington Coal Company; Manchester
Collieries; Wigan Coal Corporation; Bolsover Colliery, etc. For data on concentration of output, see Report of the Royal Commission on the Coal Industry,
1925; also The Iron and Coal Trades Review, April 4, 1930, and P.E.P. Report,
p. 42.
4
" In nearly every district it is probably true to say that three-quarters of
the production is concentrated in less than half the total number of pits and
in the hands of less than a quarter of the total number of colliery owners. But
in nearly every district there is a number of small mines, employing sometimes
less than 20 or 30 men, engaged on working outcrops and drifts. " (P.E.P.
Report, p. 42.)
— 224 —
Germany
In a number of countries—Australia, China (native mines),
India, Hungary, Czechoslovakia (lignite pits particularly), Union
of South Africa—ownership of coal mining is more or less widespread
although not to the same extent as in the United States and Great
Britain. In most of the major coal-producting countries, however—
Germany, Belgium, China (except for native mines), France, Japan,
the Netherlands, Poland and Czechoslovakia (particularly bituminous coal)—the horizontal integration of ownership has reached
very high levels.
In Germany, coal and lignite mining have long been subject to
the same forces of horizontal integration which have shaped the
whole of the industrial economy of that country. All the output
of the Ruhr mines is obtained by 33 undertakings (of which one of
the largest is State owned) whose average output in 1936 was over
3.2 million tons of coal each 1. As for the Saar, all of its mines are
owned by the German State itself, which operates them on behalf
of the national Treasury. In Aachen, the entire output is contributed
by 4 colliery undertakings, each of which raises about 2 million
tons yearly. In West Upper Silesia, the whole of the coal is mined
by 9 undertakings, averaging over 2 million tons a year each. In
West Lower Silesia, over nine-tenths of the production comes from
4 enterprises which raise well over a million tons yearly on the
average. Even in Saxony, where the units are more numerous and
smaller in size than elsewhere in Germany, 11 undertakings, with
an average annual output of from 300 to 400 thousand tons,
obtain more than nine-tenths of the total output.
Because of the heavy outlay of capital funds, which are required
to operate the strip-pit workings 2, the lignite-mining industry of
Germany has also reached an advanced stage of horizontal integration. This is particularly true of the Rhineland, where the
entire output of lignite comes from strip-pits. The two largest
enterprises of this district control each an annual output of from
15 to 20 million tons of lignite. In Central Germany and East of
the Elbe, concentration is also far advanced, although the persis1
The largest of these undertakings—owned by Vereinigte Stahlwerke—
obtains close to a fourth of the total output of pit coal in the Ruhr; the Prussian
State mines obtain over one-twelfth of the aggregate. Other very large producers are the mining properties owned by Krupp, Harper, Hoesche-KölnNeuessen, Gutehoffnungshutte, Stinnes, Klöckner, Haniel, Rheinstahl, etc.
For a study of ownership of coal deposits in the Ruhr, see E. JÜNGST: Der
Felderbesitz im Niederrheinisch-Westfälischen Bergbaubezirk, Essen, 1926.
2
About 90 per cent, of Germany's lignite output is to-day obtained from
strip-pits.
— 225 —
tence of underground workings leaves some room for a limited
number of small operators.
Belgium
In 1936 there were 174 active collieries in Belgium, with an
average output in that year of over 160,000 metric tons each.
These mines were owned by 86 colliery operators. The collieries
were further integrated financially through the ownership of
controlling blocks of shares in colliery undertakings by (a few) investment banks. At least two-fifths of output was thus controlled.
France
Particularly noteworthy is the horizontal integration of colliery
ownership in the case of France \ All the mining concessions in
France are worked by about 100 colliery undertakings with control
over some 190 properties in active exploitation and disposing,
on the average, of annual outputs of 500,000 tons or more. All
of the output of the Nord and Pas-de-Calais is raised by 26 colliery
undertakings, of which 11 mine over nine-tenths of the total for
the district 2 . Two undertakings supply the whole tonnage of
Lorraine; in 1935, their combined output reached 5.7 million tons 3.
Although small collieries occur quite frequently in the Centre and
Midi, a number of them mine from 0.3 to 1.0 million tons each;
the largest of all 4 over 2 million tons by itself. In sum, in 1935,
28 colliery undertakings out of 102 were responsible for 42.4 million
tons of coal, or about nine-tenths of the national output.
The Netherlands
Still farther advanced than in the case of France is the horizontal
integration of coal mining in the Netherlands. Two-thirds of the
national output is controlled by 4 State mines, which are operated
as profit-seeking enterprises in the interest of the national Treasury.
The remaining output is concentrated under the ownership of 4
private collieries, of which one (Orange-Nassau colliery) mines half
of the volume.
1
For a detailed study of this question, see R. LAFITTE-LAPLACE : L'Economie
Charbonnière de la France, Chapter IV, Paris, 1933.
2
Some of the largest of these undertakings—e.g. Mines d'Aniche, d'Anzin,
de Courrières, de Lens, etc.—control average outputs ranging from 3 to
4 million tons.
3
Mines de Sarre et Moselle and Petite-Rosselle.
4
Mines de Blanzy.
CR. I.
15
— 226 —
Poland
The forces of integration have also had full play in Poland, particularly in East Upper Silesia. In 1933, for example, the whole
output of East Upper Silesia—20 million metric tons—was shared
among 19 colliery undertakings of which 14 accounted for over
94 per cent, of the total production. Eleven of these large collieries
are grouped in three sales concerns so that, counting the State
mines as one unit, almost the whole sales volume of East Upper
Silesia is controlled by six concerns 1. In the Dombrowa basin,
however, there are 22 colliery undertakings, only 6 of which obtain
more than half a million tons yearly, and, of the 8 enterprises active
in the Cracow basin, only one has an output in excess of 500,000 tons.
Czechoslovakia
In Czechoslovakia, according to figures for 1934, there are in
all 86 mines which raise bituminous coal and 185 which extract
lignite. Annual output averages about 128,000 metric tons for
black coal mines and 76,000 tons for lignite workings. Small-scale
collieries thus occur not infrequently, particularly in lignite mining.
On the other hand, about 10 colliery undertakings control approximately 90 per cent, of the output of bituminous coal.
China with Manchuria
In China, excluding the small native mines, horizontal integration
has reached a particularly advanced stage in the Northern provinces
and has also made some headway in the Central provinces. Fourteen
of the collieries in North China have an annual capacity of over
200,000 tons each; one of these enterprises obtains about 5 million
tons yearly 2 ; two of them about a million tons each; several others
average from 600 to 800 thousand tons yearly. Seven of the mines
in Central China, all approximately equal in size, have an annual
capacity of over 200,000 tons each.
In Manchuria, practically the whole tonnage of coal is controlled
by the South Manchuria Railway. There are ten collieries which
share in the total output of over 12 million metric tons yearly.
One huge colliery (Fushun) is alone responsible for from 9 to
10 million tons of annual output.
1
In 1933 these 6 concerns controlled the following tonnages: Robur,
7 million; Progress, 4.4 million; State Fiscal Mines, 3 million; Fulmer, 1.8 million; Pless, 1.4 million; Giesche, 1.2 million.
2
Kailan Mining Administration.
— 227 —
Japan
In Japan, despite the existence of many small collieries, particularly in Kyushu, there are 31 coal-mining enterprises each of
which normally raises and sells at least 150,000 metric tons a
year. In 1933 the combined output of these 31 undertakings
amounted to 26.1 million metric tons, out of a national production
of 35.4 million tons—that is, about three-fourths of the total.
To a very large extent, moreover, these 31 mining companies are
under the financial control, if not the ownership, of a few merchant
and industrial banks, e.g. the Mitsui, Mitsubishi and Sumitomo
enterprises.
General Trend
For many years past, the general tendency in almost every
country has been toward the operation of fewer coal mines with
greater tonnage capacities. This is true not only of the countries
where horizontal integration has already reached high levels, but
also of those where wide diffusion of ownership still persists. A
few examples will serve to bring out the force of this tendency in
both groups of countries.
In the Ruhr district of Germany, the number of undertakings
has fallen from 120, when the Essen syndicate was founded in
1893, to some 33 at present. Average annual output per colliery
enterprise has increased more than sixfold, from about half a
million to over 3 million tons. In Belgium, the number of active
colliery enterprises fell from 164 in 1880 to 122 in 1913, to 86 in
1936, while average output per active mine was rising from 52 to
85 to 160 thousand tons for the same years. In Great Britain,
the number of mines in active operation contracted from 3,289 in
1913 to 2,539 in 1928 to 2,080 in 1936; at the same time, average
yearly production per mine rose from 87 to 90 to 110 thousand
tons. In the United States, from 9,331 in 1923, the number of
bituminous mines of commercial size in active exploitation fell
to 6,315 in 1935; during the same interval the proportion of output
from mines raising 100,000 tons or more yearly rose from 70.4
to 80.7 per cent.
Vertical Integration
The U.S.S.R.
The extremes of both vertical and horizontal integration are
reached in the Soviet Union under the regime of collective ownership
— 228 —
of the means of production. Like all the plant and equipment of
other industries, all the colliery properties of the U.S.S.R. are owned
by the State and are worked on its behalf by State trusts. More
than nine-tenths of the output of coal and lignite is obtained by
42 regional trusts which are grouped under the Glavugol, an organ
of the Commissariat for Heavy Industry; most of the remainder is
obtained by the mines which are attached to the Commissariat
for Railway Transport.
Germany
Outside the U.S.S.R. and Manchuria, the vertical integration of
collieries with other industrial undertakings has reached its highest
level in Germany, above all in the Ruhr-Aachen district and in West
Upper Silesia1. Briefly, over 55 per cent, of the coal mined in the
Ruhr is raised by collieries which are owned by iron and steel
enterprises (Vereinigte Stahlwerke, above all). More than 5 per
cent, of the output comes from collieries which belong to other
metallurgical plants, chemical works, electric power plants or gas
works. From 8 to 9 per cent, of the output is contributed by
collieries which belong to the State and may thus be regarded as
part of a separate vertical integration which includes railways,
gas and electricity works, arsenals and shipyards, etc., as well as
coal mines. Only 31 per cent, of the production is raised by
autonomous collieries (" pure " mines) which are not connected
directly, at least, with other industrial undertakings 2.
Almost all of the collieries in West Upper Silesia are " factory "
mines vertically integrated with zinc-smelting works in particular;
very large quotas of their output go to satisfy the requirements
of zinc smelters for coal as raw material and as fuel. In Aachen, all
of the colliery enterprises are bound in common ownership with
metallurgical plants, to whose coal requirements they devote a
considerable part of the total production. In the Saar, where all
the mines are owned by the State, the vertical integration is that
of coal mines with the other enterprises which are under Government ownership and management.
Because one-half of Germany's consumption of raw lignite is
taken by electric power plants and one-fifth by chemical works,
1
Two detailed studies of this subject are those of M. BAUMONT: La Grosse
Industrie Allemande et Le Charbon, Paris, 1928, and La Grosse Industrie Allemande et Le Lignite, Paris, 1928.
2
These figures relate to 1935.
— 229 —
it is readily understandable that vertical integration of lignite mines
with electricity supply stations and chemical plants should be
highly developed. The integration here is more than merely
financial; on the contrary, almost all the electric stations are superpower plants which are located on top of the brown coal beds,
particularly around Cologne, Halle, Leipzig, Frankfort-on-Oder
and Magdeburg. The chemical works are also large plants located
next to the lignite workings—for example, in the industrial regions
of Halle, Bitterfeld and Cologne. There is also some integration,
regional as well as financial, of lignite mines with sugar refineries,
paper mills, cellulose plants, glass works and porcelain works.
France
The vertical integration of coal mining is far advanced also in
France. True, not more than one-tenth of the total output is
obtained (particularly in Lorraine) from mines which are operated
by and for the account of iron and steel works; still smaller proportions of coal come from the few mines which belong to railway
companies (particularly the P.L.M.) and to chemical undertakings.
On the other hand, the great bulk of mining capacity in France
belongs to collieries which are tied-in, through communities of
financial interest, with metallurgical, chemical and electricity
supply works.
In some measure, therefore, the coal mines are controlled by
financial influences from the outside. In equal measure, however,
the mines exert financial control over outside industrial undertakings. The majority of French collieries not only hold capital
shares in metallurgical and chemical undertakings, etc., but many
of the mines, particularly in the North of France, also engage
directly in electricity supply by distributing their surplus power
from generating plants at the pithead.
Belgium
As stated earlier, from two-fifths to one-half of the output of the
Belgian mines is controlled—through share ownership—by the
investment banks of that country. These same banks have a large
interest also in the iron and steel industry. Side by side with this
interlocking financial control, there is the ownership of a limited
number of coal mines by iron and steel works, which operate them
for the purpose of satisfying their requirements of metallurgical
coke.
— 230 —
Poland
Integration of privately owned collieries with metallurgical works,
and of State-owned collieries with the State railways, is highly
developed in the East Upper Silesian district of Poland. On the
other hand, integration in the coal industry of Poland as a whole
is less developed than in Germany, Belgium or France. This is due
to the special historical conditions of ownership which have
evolved in the Dombrowa and Cracow basins.
Czechoslovakia
In Czechoslovakia, the great majority of the coal mines are
autonomous and engage exclusively in mining. Exceptions to this
rule are afforded by three companies which combine the mining
of coal with the manufacturing of iron and steel; a few chemical,
glass and porcelain undertakings which own their own mines or
have financial interests in nearby collieries; the deliveries of coal
from the State mines (run independently, however) to the State
railways; and the public supply of electric power from generating
stations owned by collieries.
The Netherlands
Except in its governmental form, vertical integration of collieries
in the Netherlands is not far advanced. But the governmental
side should not be underestimated: a considerable share of the
national output of coal is sold by the State mines to the State
railways; another substantial share is consumed for generating
electric power which is sold to regional supply undertakings for
central distribution; the coke ovens at the State mines sell large
volumes of their surplus gas, under high pressure, for public distribution; the synthetic ammonia plants of the State mines also
consume certain coal tonnages to manufacture fertilisers for inland
use and sulphate of ammonia for export.
Great Britain
Precise data with regard to vertical integration in Great Britain
are lacking. It is generally agreed, however, that commercial
collieries engaged exclusively in mining coal for sale raise the great
bulk of the total output. There are several important colliery
properties (bituminous) which are owned by or form a financial
entity with iron and steel works; for example, the colliery interests
of such coal and iron groups as Ebbw Vale, Staveley, Richard
— 231 —
Thomas, Lancashire Steel, Dorman-Long, etc. The anthracite
collieries of South Wales are also interlocked financially with
chemical undertakings in particular.
Nevertheless, the total
tonnage which such collieries deliver for consumption to their
affiliated works would seem to be a minor factor in the total yield
of output by British coal-mine undertakings.
The United States
Vertical integration among the coal mines (bituminous) of the
United States is less developed than in many other countries.
From 20 to 27 per cent, of the bituminous output of the United
States—the exact proportion varies more or less directly with the
volume of activity by iron and steel works—is raised by " captive "
mines and by mixed " captive " and commercial mines 1. The
captive mines proper supply from 11 to 18 per cent, of the national
volume of output; the mixed mines furnish approximately 9 per
cent. In other words, from 70 to 80 per cent, of the tonnage of
bituminous coal is raised by mines which are neither owned by
outside industrial works, nor, in the great majority of cases, have
any other function but the mining of coal for sale in the open market.
India
In India, under the managing agency system, the majority of
the coal mines are financed and operated by the same few houses,
largely British, which also finance and operate the majority of
the cotton mills, jute mills and tea gardens. A considerable part
of the coal tonnage is further obtained by collieries which are
affiliated with the great iron and steel works of this country.
Another part of the output comes from coal mines which belong to
the railway systems.
Japan
As in other countries, many of the coal mines of Japan are
affiliated directly with iron and steel works, chemical plants, etc.
Far more important, however, is the indirect affiliation of coal
mines with other industrial enterprises through financial combines.
1
A captive mine in the United States is one which delivers the whole of
its output for consumption by the industrial undertaking which owns it:
mainly iron and steel works but also railways, gas plants, electric utilities,
etc. A mixed captive and commercial mine is one which delivers a part of
its output for self-consumption by the parent industrial works, but sells the
rest in the open market.
— 232 —
South Africa
In South Africa, all of the coal is mined by autonomous colliery
companies.
II. — NATIONAL CONTROL SCHEMES
Almost all of the countries which are important for the mining
and/or the processing of raw coal, now have national systems of
economic control—Governmental or quasi-public—for dealing with
problems of competition in home and foreign markets. Some of
these schemes have a long history, others are of recent date \ In
the following pages these schemes will be briefly described as they
are to-day, without going into their historical development.
Great Britain 2
The voluntary efforts in Great Britain to curb competition between collieries by means of marketing schemes on a district basis3,
finally led to the passage of the Coal Mines Act of 1930 as since
amended. Part I of this Act set up a Central Council composed
of representatives of the colliery owners whose main function it
is to allot output quotas to each of the individual mining districts 4.
Separate quotas are distributed under these arrangements for
the inland and the export trades respectively 5. Because of the
decline of British coal exports in recent years, and the increased
importance of the home market, the allotment of inland quotas in
particular has come to be the crux of the whole process by which the
coal trade of Great Britain is regulated. The chief problem is how
1
See Chapter I.
The data for Great Britain are summarised, in the main, from the P.E.P.
Report on the British Coal Industry, 1936, and J. P. DICKIE: The Coal Problem,
London, 1936, supplemented by Le Conflit contemporain des houillères européennes, 1936, pp. 106-123; Etudes sur l'Organisation du Marché charbonnier,
1937, pp. 47-83; and H. A. VAN BEUNINGEN, Die Steenkolen — Oeconomie der
Voornaamste Europeesche Productielanden, The Hague, 1936, pp. 73-128.
3
For example, the South Wales Coal Marketing Association of 1927
(minimum price schedules, levies on output to compensate mines working at
a loss); the Five Counties Plan of 1927 for Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire,
Derbyshire, Lancashire and Cheshire (output quotas for individuals collieries,
levies on output to supply premiums for export shipments) ; and the Scottish
Coal Marketing Scheme of 1928, which covered 90 per cent, of the mines of
Scotland (levies on output to finance the closing down of unprofitable collieries).
4
Originally 21 districts were defined; this number has since been reduced
to 17.
6
For the 1936 allocations made by the Central Council, see Sixteenth Annual
Report of the Secretary for Mines, 1937, p. 13 2.
2
— 233 —
to reconcile the interests of mining districts whose traditional
concern has been with the home markets (e.g. Lancashire, the
Midlands) with the demands of the depressed exporting districts
(e.g. South Wales) that their reduced foreign shipments be made
up by larger shares of the inland trade.
In each of the 17 districts there is an Executive Board, also
composed of colliery owners, which distributes output quotas, for
the inland and export trades separately, to each of the collieries
under its territorial jurisdiction 1. Without attempting to describe
the fixing of quotas in detail, it may be suggested that the process
takes account of the many types, grades and sizes of coal, of the
volume of output of each mine during base periods, of the peculiar
circumstances of individual mines, of tendencies in the development of demand, etc. Power to fix prices goes hand in hand with
power to set quotas; for each Executive Board is competent to
establish minimum sales prices at the pithead, and does, in fact,
set such prices. Price fixing is also a complicated process in which
separate schedules must be drawn up, in every district, for all of
the types, grades and sizes of coal which are therein mined.
Since the summer of 1936' central selling schemes have been put
into effect in almost all of the districts. Broadly speaking, these
schemes fall into three main types. First, there is complete centralised control of sales (e.g. Lancashire and Cheshire, Shropshire,
South Staffordshire, the Forest of Dean). Under this system, a
single sales agency handles the combined output of the individual
collieries. Second, there is central supervision over and co-ordination of sales (e.g. Scotland, South Wales, Durham, Northumberland
and eight other districts). Where these schemes are in effect, each
colliery makes its own sales. Third, there are central selling agencies
each of which handles the output of a group of colliery undertakings
(e.g. the Midland Amalgamated District). Under this scheme,
individual collieries are arranged in marketing groups. Where
central selling schemes are in force, the allotment of trade shares
in particular markets tends to be superimposed on the assignment
of output quotas.
From the viewpoint of effectively regulating the home markets
and export shipments, the British control plan falls short in that
it does not as yet provide for close control over competition between
districts. Although limited to a given share of the inland trade,
1
The penalty for exceeding the quota is 2s.6d. per long ton; there are
facilities, however, for enabling mines which do not reach their quota to sell
part of their allotments to other mines.
— 234 —
each district remains free to set minimum sales prices as it sees fit ;
within limits, therefore, the minimum prices in the home markets
are competitive as between districts. What is fixed, moreover, are
pithead instead of delivered prices, so that the minima in the
various districts may be manipulated so as to take competitive
advantage, against other districts, of differentials in transport
charges. And finally, in the setting of inland and export quotas by
the Central Council, the several districts bring to bear what pressure
they can to be allotted the largest possible shares.
Part II of the Coal Act of 1930 provides for the compulsory
amalgamation of neighbouring collieries through the exercise of
its powers by the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission, a quasijudicial body. These compulsory powers can be exercised, however,
only under severely limited circumstances, and involve a drawn-out
process circumscribed by many legal safeguards 1. In practice, the
compulsory powers of the Reorganisation Commission have barely
been invoked; in part because of the firm resistance of the mine
Operators and of royalty holders; in part, also, because of the
extreme complications of the judicial and administrative procedures
involved 2. In 1938, however, the Government introduced legislation to bring about procedural reforms under Part II of the Act
of 1930; it was believed that these reforms, together with the
steps to nationalise coal royalties in 1937, might give more
practical effect to the legal possibility of compulsory amalgamations.
For safeguarding the general public against the possibility of
unreasonable prices and for protecting individual collieries against
the chance of unfair treatment, the Act of 1930 sets up a National
Investigation Committee and local Investigation Committees in
each of the districts. These committees are named by and are
responsible to the Board of Trade. Their powers are to hear all
complaints arising out of the practical application of the national
and district schemes. Reports are then made to the Board of
Trade, which is competent to transmit appropriate recommend1
In order to justify the exercise of its compulsory powers, the burden of
proof is on the Reorganisation Commission to show, of any proposed amalgamation, that (1) it is in the national interest, (2) it will result in lowering the
cost of production or distribution, (3) it will not be financially injurious to any
of the undertakings involved, (4) the terms are fair and equitable to all persons
affected. All four of these conditions must be proved to the satisfaction of the
Railway and Canal Commission, a judicial body which is competent, after
hearing the case, to issue appropriate enforcing orders.
2
The most important of the recent amalgamations—that of the Welsh
Associated Collieries and of the Powell Duflryn Colliery in 1934—was the
outcome of a voluntary agreement.
— 235 —
ations either to the Central Council or to the district Executive
Boards.
The Act of 1930 further set up the Coal Mines National Industrial
Board, which is so constituted as to represent the interests of mine
owners, mine workers, consumers, co-operatives, etc. This body
is empowered to intervene, by enquiry and investigation, when
conflicts occur between the owners and the workers. In practice,
however, the Industrial Board has been almost entirely inactive 1.
Germany 2
There are ten regional coal-mining cartels in Germany, of which
by far the most important is the Rhenish-Westphâlian Coal Syndicate 3 (covering the mines of the Ruhr, of the Saar and of Aachen)
whose member collieries account for more than eight-tenths of
Germany's output of pit coal, and for practically all of the export
shipments of raw coal of the country. Regional syndicates are
also established among the coal mines of Bavaria, Lower Saxony,
Saxony, West Upper Silesia, and West Lower Silesia; as well as
among the lignite mines of the Lower Rhineland, Central Germany,
and East of the Elbe; finally there is a syndicate for the producers
of gas coke.
All ten of the syndicates are grouped in the National Coal
Federation 4 (Reichskohlenverband) whose powers, exclusively
Commercial, are twofold: (1) to record the sales prices which
are fixed by the regional syndicates for deliveries to the noncontested home markets and to submit these prices to the Federal
Coal Council for promulgation by the latter, (2) to participate
in the. organisation of the domestic coal trade by means of an
1
The fixing of minimum wage rates and of maximum hours for colliery
workers in Great Britain is regulated by collective agreements and by national
legislation including some provisions of the Coal Mines Act of 1930.
2
The data for Germany are mainly summarised from Germany : Ausschuss
zur Untersuchung der Erzeugungs- und Absatzbedingungen der deutschen
Wirtschaft. Die deutsche Kohlenwirtschafl, Berlin, 1929, pp. 405-458; Le
Conflit contemporain des houillères européennes, 1936, pp. 124-138; Etudes sur
l'Organisation du Marché charbonnier, 1937, pp. 3-45, and Die Steenkolen —
Oeconomie der Voornaamste Europeesche Productielanden, 1936, pp. 128-187.
3
For the history of this organisation see H. LÜTHGEN: Das RheinischWestfälische Kohlen-Syndikat in der Vorkriegs- Kriegs- und Nachkriegszeit
und seine Hauptprobleme, Leipzig, 1926; also, A. W. STOCKER: Regulating an
Industry, New York, 1932.
4
Voting power in this body is distributed according to the tonnages mined
by the various districts ; thus a heavy preponderance of voting power is vested
in the great Ruhr syndicate.
— 236 —
agreement with the Central Federation of Coal Merchants (Zentralverband der Kohlenhändler Deutschlands).
Drastically reorganised since 1933, in the main by the exclusion
of the workers' representatives 1, the Federal Coal Council (Reichskohlenrat) has also suffered a curtailment of what nominal powers
it formerly held. There now remains only the more or less formal
function of giving official approval to the minimum coal prices
which are passed on to it by the National Coal Federation 2 .
Since 1934, moreover, all the collieries of Germany have been
required to belong to a new body, the Economic Group of the
Mining Industry, under the leadership of a Leiter 3. The group serves
to bring together all the enterprises which exploit deposits of coal,
lignite, iron ore, potash, salt, oil, etc., and is affiliated to the Federal
Chamber of the National Economy. Its powers are to supervise
and protect its members in the exercise of their professional
interests; expressly forbidden, however, are any measures with a
view to regulating output, marketing, sales, or prices. The whole
system culminates in the Minister of the National Economy.
Apart from his general powers to " co-ordinate " coal mining into
the framework of the total economy, the Minister's chief immediate
concern is to exercise final control over the price policies of the
regional cartels. Under the new system, as under the old, it is
these regional cartels which underlie and give effect to the economic
control of coal mining in Germany.
For practical purposes it will suffice here to examine the structure
and functions of the Rhenish-Westphalian Coal Syndicate. This
is a highly developed cartel, membership in which is obligatory
upon all the colliery enterprises within its territorial jurisdiction 4.
First, the syndicate allots both output quotas and sales shares to
the individual collieries. Second, it sets the official minimum prices,
1
In April 1933, when the workers' representatives were excluded, membership was reduced from 60 to 32.
2
These minimum prices relate only to the pithead prices paid by large-scale
consumers to the exclusion of the customers who are supplied by wholesale
or retail dealers. These prices apply, moreover, only to the so-called noncontested markets (home markets served exclusively by one regional syndicate)
to the exclusion of the contested home markets and of the export trade. Wholesale dealers receive, furthermore, a rebate of 6 per cent, on the minimum prices
as officially established for deliveries to the non-contested markets.
:
The body was set up in accordance with the law of 27 February 1934.
4
In April 1934 the Ruhr Syndicate absorbed the pre-existing cartel of
the Aachen mines. Upon the return of the Saar to Germany after the plebiscite
of 1935, the Ruhr Syndicate was further vested with sales power over the output
of the Saar mines, which are State-owned.
— 237 —
at the pithead, for quantity sales of all coal disposed of for delivery
to the non-contested markets of Germany. Third, it acts as the
selling agency through which the individual collieries are obliged
to market all of their output which is not self-consumed.
The system of output quotas and sales shares distinguishes
between pure mines, which raise the whole of their output, save
colliery fuel, for sale in the home or foreign markets, and factory
mines under common ownership with iron and steel works, chemical
plants, etc., which sell part of their output in the open market and
deliver the rest to their affiliated industrial works. Pure mines
receive sales shares which limit their open market deliveries to a
certain maximum, as well as output quotas for their self-consumption of colliery fuel. Factory mines receive, over and above all
this, output quotas for self-consumption by their industrial works
under common ownership.
All collieries which belong to the syndicate are obliged to sell
to it the whole of their output excluding, however, fuel for use by
the colliery (Zechenselbstverbrauch), fuel consumed by industrial
works under common ownership (Hiittenselbstverbrauch1),
fuel
furnished to mine workers, local sales of coal at the pithead and
deliveries to charitable institutions. All transfers of output from
the individual mines to the syndicate are transacted at prices which
are fixed by the syndicate itself. First, there are the base prices
(Richtpreise) for each type, grade and size of coal; these are founded
on the mining costs of the collieries which work under the most
unfavourable conditions and thus afford large margins of profit to
the mines which raise their coal at less expense. Secondly, these
base prices are modified somewhat to take account of the particular
cost levels of individual collieries; the coal is thus bought at
accounting prices (Verrechnungspreise) which vary somewhat in
each case.
In its market practices, the syndicate distinguishes strictly
between sales for delivery to the contested market (bestrittenes
Gebiet) and to the non-contested markets (unbestrittenes Gebiet).
The non-contested market includes all of Germany except Hamburg,
Bremen and the regions East of the Elbe ; here the pithead prices
which apply are the minimum schedules, of official force, which
are set by the syndicate itself. The contested markets include all
foreign countries, together with Hamburg, Bremen and the regions
1
Deliveries of coal from the mine for self-consumption oy affiliated industrial
works are negociated—by a special regime, however—through the intervention of the syndicate.
— 238 —
East of the Elbe; here the pithead prices which apply are those
rendered necessary by the exigencies of local competition.
Because of competitive pressure, the syndicate may have to take
large losses on the difference between the accounting prices at which
coal is acquired from the member collieries, and the effective prices
at which it has to be sold for delivery to the contested markets.
To make up this difference a compensatory tax (the so-called
Umlage) is levied upon the total tonnage mined by each colliery.
This compensatory tax varies in amount, however, between the
sale shares for deliveries to the open market and the output quotas
for self-consumption by affiliated works x. Exempted from the
Umlage, moreover, is approximately 30 per cent, of the output
quota for self-consumption by plants under common ownership
with the colliery. In effect, therefore, the monopoly spread of
profit margins in sales for delivery to the non-contested home
market is partially recaptured for subsidising competitive sales
in the contested markets abroad and at home. The fixed official
prices of the monopoly zones, all within Germany, help to pay for
the varying current prices of the competitive zones in Germany
and in foreign countries.
The syndicate reserves to itself the right of making direct sales
to a number of very large consumers; for example, the State Railways, municipal gas works and thermo-electric plants, certain
big metallurgical establishments, etc. The remainder of the coal
is turned over for sale (at a rebate of 6 per cent, from the quoted
prices) to a number óf wholesale sales agencies each of which
enjoys exclusive rights over a particular market. Part of the coal
is thus distributed through regional Coal Sales Societies (Zechenhandelsgesellschaften) in markets where only one body of this kind
exists ; the rest is distributed through regional Coal Sales Combines
(Kohlenkontore) made up by agreements between two or more such
sales societies. Toward the end of 1937, the syndicate also took the
first steps to set up a central system of electric power supply
(Ruhr-Elekitrizität A.G.). In part, the aim is to increase the output
of electric current in the Ruhr—as called for by the Four-Year
Plan—and in part to assure pit coal against the competition of
lignite in the generation of electric power for the Ruhr 2.
With variations, the practices of the Rhenish-Westphalian Coal
Syndicate are representative of those of the German regional
1
In 1935, for example, the Umlage came to 4.07 RM. for sale shares and to
3.01 RM. for output quotas,
2
See Kölnische Zeitung, 24 August 1937.
— 239 —
cartels as a whole. Each of the syndicates enjoys, in short, an
absolute monopoly over certain home markets from which other
syndicates are effectively excluded by the burden of transportation
charges in the main 1. As in other countries, so also in Germany,
transportation differentials play a large part in zoning out the home
market among the several mining districts; this is particularly
true of lignite, which, because of its low calorific value in the raw
state, is shut out of markets which can be reached only by long
rail hauls. Nor is competition allowed full play in the contested
markets which enjoy cheap access to the output of two or more
districts, for the exploitation of the contested home markets is a
matter which readily lends itself to understandings among the
district cartels which are directly concerned. On the other hand,
control of sales and prices is far less rigid in the contested than in
the non-contested parts of Germany's home market. Where the
regional cartels are obliged to exploit the same outlet in common
(often, moreover, competitively with import shipments as at
Hamburg or Bremen) monopoly falls short of the levels that it
can reach in the markets which are effectively reserved to individual
syndicates.
Even in Germany, to sum up, competition between mining
districts for the home market is thus somewhat short of complete
control. This explains why in recent years some of the regional
cartels have voiced the demand, not yet satisfied, that each district
be assigned a sales share for home market deliveries and that the
home market be divided into several zones of preferential influence.
United States 2
The existing framework of marketing control in the collieries of
the United States falls into two distinct parts : bituminous and
anthracite mines. The marketing of bituminous coal is regulated
nationally by federal law—the Bituminous Coal Act of 1937, which
has replaced the earlier N.R.A. Codes (1933) and the Bituminous
Coal Conservation Act (1935). There is no federal legislation,
however, for the marketing of anthracite coal.
Under the legislation of 1937, the many thousands of bituminous
coal mines in the United States are grouped into 23 mining districts,
* As for import shipments to the non-contested home markets, these cannot
be sold at prices below the minima fixed by the regional cartels and officially
approved by the Federal Coal Council.
2
The details of the Bituminous Coal Act of 1937 are summarised from United
States Public Document No. 48, 75th Congress, H.R. 4985: An Act to regulate
inter-State commerce in bituminous coal, and for other purposes.
— 240 —
in each of which there is set up a District Board composed mainly
of colliery owners 1. These districts are further grouped into
10 minimum price areas, each of which is so defined as to include
mining districts which are more or less directly competitive.
National co-ordination is aimed at by means of the National Bituminous Coal Commission, made up of owner, worker and Government
members, to which a Consumers' Counsel is also attached 2.
With the aid of a statistical bureau dependent on the National
Coal Commission, each District Board has to work out and submit,
to the National Commission, proposals for minimum prices, f.o.b.
mines, for all kinds, grades and sizes of coal produced by the
collieries under its territorial jurisdiction, together with information
as to coal classifications, price spreads between mines, consuming
markets served, sales values and seasonal variations of demand.
These minimum price proposals must be calculated so as to yield
a " return per net ton for each district in a minimum price area
. . . equal as nearly as may be to the weighted average of the
total costs, per net ton " of the total tonnage mined within the
minimum-price area. In making such proposals, the District Boards
must be guided by the weighted average costs for each minimum
price area as determined by the National Commission from the
cost data for the various districts as submitted to it by the District
Boards in reliance upon their statistical bureaux. Before submitting
its minimum price proposals, moreover, each District Board should
consult with the others of its minimum price area, and try to reach
an agreement as to the co-ordination of sales prices in their bearing
upon the common markets served by all.
If and when approved by the National Commission, which has
the power of review and amendment, these proposals for minimum
prices at the pithead become binding on all the collieries concerned.
When, however, the proposals of the district boards are unacceptable, or where the public interest so requires it in the want of any
proposal, the National Commission may establish minimum prices
upon its own initiative for any or all districts. The National
Commission is further empowered to fix maximum prices for coal,
when the public interest requires t h a t consumers of coal be pro1
These boards vary in membership from three to seventeen. All but one
of the members represent colliery owners—the remaining member is named
by the representative labour organisation of the workers.
2
There are seven members, of whom two must have had experience as bituminous coal-mine workers, and two must have had experience as coal-mine
operators; but no members shall have any financial interest at present, direct
or indirect, in any of the fuel and power industries.
— 241 —
tected against unreasonably high prices ; but no such maxima shall
be established for any mine which would deprive it of a fair return
on the fair value of the property.
No provisions are made in the Act for limiting total output,
nationally or by districts, or for allotting output quotas and sales
shares among the individual mines. On the contrary, the apparatus
of control is exclusively inspired by the belief that competition between mines and districts can be made equitable by enforcing minimum price schedules that are shaped with a view to co-ordinating
the price structures of the individual mining districts which compete
for common consuming areas. Aside from the price-fixing provisions,
the Act also defines thirteen separate trade practices which shall
be regarded as unfair methods of competition, and indulgence in
which shall be punishable as a violation of the Code. Adherence
to J¿te terms of the Act is assured by levying a federal tax of 19%
per cent, of the pithead value of all coal mined by those operators,
and only by those operators, who fail to qualify as Code members
under the Act.
It is too early to pass judgment upon the efficacy of the present
law to control the marketing of bituminous coal in the United
States 1 . Obviously, the success of the law must largely depend upon
the ability of the National Commission to integrate the comparative
price structures of individual producing areas which serve common
consuming regions, while giving proper weight, at the same time,
to bituminous coal prices in relation to the prices of anthracite
coal, oil, natural gas and water power. More so than in any
other country, the fixing of minimum prices for bituminous
coal in the United States must reconcile the desires of colliery
operators for satisfactory margins of profit with the large facilities
which consumers have for shifting to other fuels when sales prices
of coal are too high.
Poland 2
The existing scheme of control in Poland regulates the production and marketing of coal through a national agreement—the
1
So far, the National Bituminous Coal Commission has found it impossible
to prevail upon the District Boards in some of the most important minimum
prices areas to join together for making acceptable minimum price proposals.
The National Commission has thus been obliged to make use of its powers
to decree minimum prices on its own initiative. To complicate the situation
more, unfavourable decisions in the lower federal courts have led the Commission to suspend, for the time being, any and all of its minimum prices.
2
The following data are summarised from Le Conflit contemporain des Houillères Européennes, pp. 145-150 ; Etudes sur l'Organisation du Marché charbonnier,
C i t . I.
16
— 242 —
Polish Coal Convention—by means of which the pre-existing
regional cartels of East Upper Silesia, Dombrowa and Cracow
formed a nation-wide cartel 1 . Subject to the freedom of each
mine to make its own sales, production and marketing are regulated
in four ways:
(1) From time to time, output quotas are fixed for each of the
individual collieries. These quotas limit the maximum
tonnage which the individual mines are permitted to raise
during the course of a given period.
(2) Over and above t h a t part of the output quota which is
covered by the self-consumption of the colliery and of its
affiliated industrial works, each mine is assigned sales shares
which limit the volume of its deliveries to the open market.
These sales shares distinguish among deliveries (a) to the
home market of Poland itself; (b) to foreign markets reaShed
by inland routes (Central European, Balkan and Danubian
countries) ; (c) to foreign markets reached by sea-borne shipments through the Baltic ports (Scandinavian, West European, Mediterranean, etc.)
(3) Minimum price schedules, at the pithead, are set for deliveries
to each of the various markets with which the Convention
is concerned. As regards home market deliveries, however,
the Government exercises control over the maximum prices.
(4) Provisions are made for the grading and classification of
coals. In practice, ten authorised varieties have been
defined; no mine is allowed to raise any varieties of coal
other than these ten, and all mines are forbidden to sell an
authorised variety under any but its official name.
Over and above these four functions which are expressly provided
by its statute, the Polish Coal Convention also served as an instrument for carrying out the export subsidy measures by which the
Government aimed, in 1931-1932, at fostering and promoting the
coal export trade of that country.
pp. 103-122; Die Steenkolen—Oeconomie der Voornaamste Europeesche Producilelanden,
pp. 188-204.
1
The Polish Coal Convention was first formed in 1925, has been renewed
several times since then, and was extended in 1934 so as to absorb the Polish
Export Convention of 1932 for regulating export shipments by sea. State
supervision of the scheme rests on the Decree of 6 April 1932 which empowers
the Minister of Industry to control output, stocks and sales of coal ; to forbid
exports and imports where in the public interest ; to regulate marketing within
Poland ; to compel mine owners to organise, and to endow the existing organisations of the mine owners with the attributes proper to compulsory bodies.
— 243 —
Broadly speaking, the tasks of the Polish Coal Convention have
been twofold: First, to regulate competition between mining
districts and individual mines during a period when the " natural "
export markets of Poland (Germany, Austria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, etc.) were sharply contracting, and this in the face of an
arrested or curtailed volume of home market demand. Second,
to maintain home market prices at a sufficient height to allow
export prices to adjust themselves to the competitive levels of
German and British shipments to Western Europe, Scandinavia,
and the Mediterranean.
Because of the burdens which the national market has had to
carry under this system, the Government has stepped in from time
to time to protect home market consumers from high prices. It
did so, for example, in 1933 and again in 1934 and 1935 1.
There is, finally, one elastic feature under the scheme: each
of the collieries is free to carry out its own marketing.
France 2
On the basis of the horizontal and vertical integration of coal
mines as described earlier, there has grown up a scheme of supervision in France which may be summarised as follows:
(1) For the purpose of negotiating collective agreements on
wages and hours with the representaitve trade unions of
the workers, the individual mines are grouped in regional
employers' associations.
(2) For the defence of their common professional interests in
the legislative, judicial and administrative fields, the individual collieries are members of the Central Committee of
French Collieries (Comité Central des Houillères de France) 3.
1
Thus, in March 1933, a Decree was issued to reduce internal sales prices
for coal by 18 per cent. This was compensated by a reduction of 3 zloty per
ton on rail shipments of export coal to the Baltic ports. Similar reductions
were ordered in November 1934 and in December 1935.
2
The data for France are summarised mainly from Enquête sur les conditions
économiques et financières des mines de combustible françaises, Annales des
Mines, 1937; Le Conflit contemporain des Houillères européennes, pp. 139-144;
Die Steenkolen—Oeconomie der Voornaamste Europeesche Productielanden,
pp. 205-235; and R. LAFITTE-LAPLACE: L'Economie Charbonnière de la France,
Paris, 1933, pp. 211-215, 601-612, 719-729.
3
This body was created in 1888, on the basis of the law of 1884 which
regulates professional syndicates. It is not concerned with regulating production or marketing, nor yet with negotiating collective agreements on wages
and hours. Its activities, instead, are to represent the coal-mining industry
before the public authorities and. to name the delegates of the coal-mining
industry to the National Economic Council (Conseil national économique)
— 244 —
(3) For the better ordering of competition between the mines of
individual districts, the collieries of each basin are joined
in regional marketing combines, of which the largest, the
Comptoir de Douai which covers the collieries of the Nord
and Pas-de-Calais, supervises the marketing of two-thirds
of the national production 1 .
(4) For the preferential zoning out of the home market among
the several mining districts, the three regional combines
of the North, the East, the Centre and South are parties to
an agreement which divides France (except for certain coastal
areas from Calvados to Basses-Pyrénées) into several territorial spheres of preferential influence.
(5) For the effective supervising of competition in the coastal
areas which are excluded from the territorial zones of
preferential influence, the colliery owners, on the one hand,
and the coal importers, on the other, have jointly set up
a Sales Bureau for Classified Coals and Solid Fuels (Comptoir
des Charbons classés et agglomérés).
(6) By an international agreement (Convention des Gailleteries),
which dates back to 1927, the coal mines of the North of
France, of Belgium, of the Netherlands, and of the Ruhr,
have been parties to an understanding to maintain reasonable price levels in their sales to the French markets which
they serve in common.
(7) By virtue of the quota system on coal imports, first introduced under the Decree of 10 July 1931, the possibility
that the equilibrium of the home market might be disturbed
by a flood of imports has been altogether wiped out.
(8) By the law of 18 August 1936, finally, the Government is
empowered to fix the prices of all coals—domestic and
imported—by districts and by categories; to grant subventions to pits operating at a deficit because of the extra
and to the employers' federations. It maintains technical, legislative, legal
and economic services.
1
The Comptoir de Douai not only fixes minimum price schedules for deliveries
to the whole of France (its sole original function) but also (since April 1937)
approves direct to individual pits all orders in excess of 250 tons a month or
3,000 tons yearly, while reserving to itself the right of handling and distributing
on its own account all large orders from railways, electric utilities, gas
works, etc. The Comptoir de Metz handles the sales of its two member collieries in certain non-contested markets, but leaves them free to sell as best
they can in the contested markets of the country. The combines among the
mines of the Centre and Midi also have marketing control as their exclusive
function.
— 245 —
burden of mining costs attributable to labour reforms;
and to undertake enquiries into the operating conditions
of collieries, importers and merchants with an ultimate
view to proposing national and district plans of marketing
control.
Greatest weight attaches to the two national schemes for regulating
the internal trade in coal, although it is not yet clear how they will
be eventually modified by the application of the Coal Industry
Control Act of 1936 and of the marketing plans which may hereafter be enacted. Each of these schemes, it should be stressed,
leaves the individual collieries free to do their own marketing,
except so far as this may be limited by the statutes of a regional
combine, or by the marketing controls which may in the future
follow out the lines of policy that were laid down by the legislation
of 1936.
The Convention of 1931, as renewed in 1932 and subsequently,
extends to all of France except the Atlantic coast and the western
Channel ports. It divides the country into four zones of preferential
influence. Zone A, which is preferentially reserved to the collieries
of the Nord and of the Pas-de-Calais, includes 16 Departments of
the North of France, Paris and Rouen, as well as deliveries of coke
from mines in the North to blast furnaces operating in Zone B.
In Zone B, covering 8 Departments of the East, the mines of
Lorraine form the privileged group. Zone C includes 41 Departments of the Centre, Provence, the Mediterranean, the Alps, etc.,
and is subdivided into zones of influence which are allotted to the
mines of the Centre and of the Midi respectively. Zone D, a neutral
area where none of the basins enjoy special privileges, comprises
Departments situated between Zones A and B and Zones A and C.
There is also a functional Zone R, which covers deliveries to railways, to gas works, and to electricity supply undertakings in the
Department of the Seine.
Each mining basin undertakes to limit its total sales to a
maximum governed by the respective sales volumes of the various
districts in 1929-1930. This is the national quota, all deliveries
in excess of which are subject to tonnage fines. Within each zone
of influence, moreover, zone quotas are applied in such a manner
that a non-privileged basin which exceeds its allotment must pay
tonnage fines to the protected group which enjoys the preferential
rights.
The Sales Bureau for Classified Coals and Solid Fuels is occupied
— 246 —
with the marketing of solid fuel for household use in the coastal
regions covering the 17 Departments which are excluded from the
zoning scheme. It is the Bureau itself which makes the sales,
placing appropriate orders with the French mines, on the one hand,
and with the importers of foreign coal on the other. These orders
are distributed between individual mines and importers on the basis
of sales participations; each mine or importer is given a sales coefficient which is multiplied into the estimated volume of demand for
the year to come.
Supple and plastic as compared with the commercial structure of
coal mining in other European countries, the system of marketing
control in France seems to work smoothly and effectively on the
whole. Because of the great quantities of coking and household
coals which are imported into France, the major problem there
has always been to keep a competitive balance between home
output and import shipments. This problem may be regarded as
largely solved by the marketing arrangements which prevail plus
the import quotas in force. Such difficulties which still persist are
confined to the frictions, not altogether eliminated, of interdistrict
competition for the home market.
Other Countries
Lack of space precludes a detailed description of the systems which
other countries use for control of the marketing of coal and its
products. A few summaries will have to suffice 1.
Belgium
The present scheme for regulating the production and marketing
of coal in Belgium was established in 19352. Its chief organ is
the National Goal Office (Office National des Charbons), a cooperative society of colliery owners, which limits total output,
assigns output quotas, regulates inland and foreign sales, supervises the export trade, and reserves to itself the central selling
of export shipments and of bunker fuel, as well as deliveries
to public authorities, railways, coking plants, gas works, thermoelectric plants, and bottle and glass works. The trade in coke,
since January 1937, has been regulated by the Belgian Coke Office
(Office Belge des Cokes), also a co-operative body, whose function
1
2
For U.S.S.R., see above, pp. 227-228.
Its main predecessor was a private marketing combine—the Comptoir
Belge des Charbons Industriels—set up in 1929.
— 247 —
it is to co-ordinate the activities of its member cokeries, with
regard to production and marketing.
The Netherlands
The most striking feature of the set-up of coal mining in the
Netherlands is that more than two-thirds of the total output is
obtained from four large mines which are owned by the State.
This tends to simplify the task of co-ordinating marketing policies
between the State mines and the four private collieries. The quota
limitations on imports also act toward the same end.
Czechoslovakia
In Czechoslovakia, there are regional combines among the collieries
of the several coal and lignite basins ; each of these combines assigns
output quotas and sales shares, and regulates marketing and prices.
Since the end of 1934, the regional combines have been joined in a
National Cartel (Uhlospol) for the purpose of reducing competition
between the basins to a minimum. The marketing policies of the
National Cartel are implemented through an autonomous Sales
Society, which handles inland sales as well as export shipments 1.
Japan
In Japan, since 1934, the coal cartels have functioned under the
official sanction of the Control of the Leading Industries Act of
that year. The national cartel, to which all of the larger collieries
belong, takes the form of the Coal Mining Association 2. This body
is vested with the usual powers to regulate the volume of output,
to assign output quotas and sales shares, etc. The marketing
of the output of member collieries is centralised through the
Showa Coal Company. In its practical operation this scheme has
given rise to a large amount of controversy, centring round the
supposed shortages of coal which result from the policy of curtailing output in the interest of profitable prices.
South Africa
In South Africa, most of the large collieries belong to the Transvaal Chamber of Mines (which covers gold and base metal mining
as well as coal mining); this body is concerned with a common
1
The State mines—which possess a sales organisation of their own—do
not belong to the National Cartel.
2
The small collieries of Kyushu are separately organised, however, in the
autonomous Mutual Aid Association.
— 248 —
legislative action, with recruiting supplies of Native labour, and
with formulating labour policies on wages, hours, employment
contracts and other aspects of industrial relations. Many of the
collieries also belong to the Transvaal Coal Owners' Association,
which is a marketing agency. This Association, which dates back
to 1907, allots sales shares to the member collieries, buys their
output at fixed basic prices at the pithead, disposes of the coal as
best it can, pools the revenues from all sales, and then distributes
the profits (or losses) among the individual mines pro rata to the
tonnage of their sales.
Summary
With few exceptions (notably the United States), all of the
major plans for the economic control of coal mining involve
the setting of output quotas and sales shares. Almost all of them
aim likewise at fixing minimum pithead prices, particularly for
home market deliveries. Most of them practice the preferential
zoning of home and foreign markets in favour of individual districts
and of individual mines. Many of them provide facilities, where
needed, for raising home market prices in order to offset the competitive prices of sales to foreign markets ; the techniques for attaining
this end frequently include compensatory taxes on total output or
internal sales for the purpose of raising competition funds. In
countries where coal is mined in several basins, the machinery of
control has to aim at co-ordinating the marketing activities of the
regional cartels or combines. The efficacy of these methods is
enhanced, in most countries, by various commercial, transportation,
fiscal and other policies for the protection of home markets, as well
as by horizontal and vertical integration.
III.
—
INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS
The movement towards regulating international competition
between coal-exporting countries is still in an early stage 1 . The
main developments in this direction so far are the agreement for
regulating export volumes between the colliery owners of Great
Britain and Poland and the European cartel for supervising the
export trade in coke 2.
1
The analysis which follows is based on data taken from P. E. P. Report
on the British Coal Industry, Le Conflit Contemporain des Houillères Européennes, and the monthly issues, passim, of International Çoal Trade.
2
Some mention might also be made of certain earlier efforts. First, there
was the export agreement which expired in 1933, between the members of
— 249 —
Although the establishment of an international coal cartel was
discussed for many years prior to the Great Depression, it was not
until the end of 1934 that the first decisive step was taken. At
that time, the colliery owners of Great Britain and Poland executed
the so-called Anglo-Polish Coal Export Agreement, the essential
terms of which may be summarised as follows:
Poland's coal exports to a specified group of markets should
in no quarter of the calendar year exceed 21 per cent, of
British shipments to the same markets during the preceding
quarter. These limits were subject to a supplementary allowance of 10 per cent, for Polish exports in the event that British
exports to the markets specified should exceed 8,750,000 tons
during any given quarter. British coal shipments to these
markets were unlimited in volume.
In calculating the volume of British exports, shipments to
Ireland and to North and South America were excluded.
Likewise excluded in calculating the volume of Polish exports
were inland shipments to Czechoslovakia, Hungary and
Austria, as well as deliveries to frontier points. In short, the
agreement was mainly designed to regulate exports to the
Scandinavian, the Baltic, the West European and Mediterranean markets.
To take account of seasonal variations of demand, a certain
part of every quarterly quota might be reserved by the Polish
colliery owners to be utilised during one of three succeeding
quarters.
If, in the future, Poland should once again find it possible
to export substantial tonnages to Germany, such exports
would be regulated—before they began—by means of an
agreement between the two parties, or in default of an agreement, by arbitration.
the West Upper Silesia coal syndicate in Germany and the parties to the
Polish Coal Convention. Applying to tonnages exported to Austria and
Hungary, and operating by means of quarterly quotas, the effect of the arrangement was to allow 87 per cent, of the shipments to the Polish mines and
the remaining 13 per cent, to Germany. Second, there is the international coal
agreement of 1927 between the mines of the North of France, of Belgium, of
the Netherlands, and of the Ruhr in Germany. This agreement, which appears
to be still in force, is concerned with avoiding excessive price-cutting in the
markets of France. Third, there was the agreement in the latter part of 1931
for regulating imports of German coal into Belgium and Belgium's exports
of coal to other countries between the Ruhr Syndicate of Germany and the
Eschweiler Bergwerks Verein, on the one hand, and the nation-wide Comptoir
of Belgium, on the other.
— 250 —
In the event that either party to the agreement should
find itself endangered by the competition of another coalexporting country, both parties would be free to have recourse
to policies capable of protecting their reciprocal interests.
Certain facilities for correlating export prices between the
two countries concerned were also contemplated.
In the case of a mining strike in Great Britain, in Poland,
or in other countries; or if abnormal circumstances should
affect the demand for coal or the ability of either party to make
deliveries—the agreement might then be modified in the light
of these circumstances.
What Great Britain gained by the Anglo-Polish Agreement of
1934 was the assurance that Polish coal exports to a number of
important markets—Scandinavian, Baltic, West European and
Mediterranean—would not exceed certain maximum volumes.
What Poland gained in return was relief from the pressure upon
coal export prices that began to make itself felt after the devaluation
of the pound sterling in the autumn of 1931.
Toward the end of 1937, the Anglo-Polish Agreement was renewed
for two years more with several important modifications. The
new terms, so far as disclosed, are much more favourable to Poland
than were the old terms. As before, Poland's export shipments
are to be limited in quantity. In the future, however, Poland will
be free to choose between whichever of two authorised bases allows
her to export a larger volume: First, the total volume of coal
shipped as cargo by Great Britain, Germany, Poland, Belgium and
the Netherlands during the course of 1937; second, the current
volume of British shipments more broadly defined than formerly
by the inclusion of briquettes and of exports to North and South
America. It is generally believed that the international broadening
of the base for fixing the volume of Polish coal exports may well
be a step toward the future creation of an all-European cartel to
include the coal exporters of Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands, as well as those of Great Britain and Poland 1 .
On 1 April 1937, after preliminary negotiations lasting several
years, there came into force an international coke cartel binding
upon the exporters of Germany, Great Britain, the Netherlands,
Belgium and Poland. This agreement establishes individual export
1
For comments on the renewal of the Anglo-Polish export agreement see .
Polska Gospodarcza, Warsaw, 18 December 1937 and 25 December 1937;
also La Journée Industrielle, Paris, 28 December 1937, and Nationalzeitung,
Basle, same date.
— 251 —
quotas for each of the five parties concerned, on the following
basis :
Germany
Great Britain
Netherlands
Belgium
Poland
Total
Per cent48.43
20.88
17.83
9.66
3.20
100.00
The terms of the cartel further divide the various import markets
into four groups, each of which is preferentially reserved to one or
more of the exporting countries. Machinery is set up, finally, by
means of which minimum prices for export shipments of coke are
to be made binding on all of the parties to the agreement.
IV. — CONCLUSIONS
The facts presented in this chapter reveal clearly that the coalmining industry in all countries has passed out of the era of " free
competition " into one of economic and social " control " in which
production, marketing and prices are largely governed by combines,
cartels, etc., which are subject to the regulation of public and
semi-public bodies. Despite their differences, the schemes of
control have this in common, that they all aim at developing rules and
regulations which would minimise the effects of differences of
mining, transportation and distribution costs upon prices and
upon the relative competitive status of mining districts or exporting
countries.
What is also clear from the record is that the efforts, described
in Chapter VII, to restrict import shipments and to protect domestic
collieries as well as the movement, reviewed in this chapter, towards
integration and the regulation of output, sales and prices, do not
form a harmonious system nor are they entirely complementary
to one another. In some measure, it is true, the control of coal
mining in individual countries presupposes the regulation of the
import and export trade in coal, while such regulation promotes, to
some extent, the movement towards national control. On the other
hand, the piling up of obstacles to the world trade in coal during
recent years represents a short-run reaction to emergency conditions, while the various control schemes arise out of a desire to
deal with the economic and social problems of coal mining on a
long-run basis. To evolve a policy which would meet the short-run
— 252 —
problems of the industry in individual coal-mining countries while
satisfying, at the same time, the long-run needs of the industry as
a whole, is one of the basic problems which the transition from
" free competition " to " economic control " in coal mining has
accentuated. A particular aspect of this general problem arises
from the fact that any measures taken on behalf of the coalmining industry must be devised in full recognition of their possible
effects upon the further use of substitutes for coal and further
economies in the use of coal. The final suggestion which emerges is
that the growth of combination and public regulation in coal
mining, by protecting the competitive equilibrium against differentials of labour costs, should act to facilitate the international
regulation of labour standards in the industry.
Throughout the first part of this Report, the direct and indirect
effects of economic developments on the social condition of the
mine workers have been repeatedly brought into view. This has
been called for because of the close inter-relation of economic and
social problems. However, in view of the special interest of the
International Labour Organisation, the social conditions of the
workers call for a more detailed consideration. This subject,
covering questions of wages and earnings, employment and unemployment, social insurance and social services, paid holidays and
the regulation of hours of work, is considered in Vol. II of this
Report.
INDEX
VOL.
Alsace-Lorraine.
Production, Pre- and Post-War 63.
Anglo-Polish Coal Export Agreement
249.
Argentina.
Consumption 69, 70.
imports 115, 117, 125, 147.
Trade Balance 119.
Australia.
Consumption 67, 69, 70.
Exports 115, 116, 121, 143.
Imports 117.
Production 54, 56, 63.
Resources 39.
Trade Balance 119.
Trade: Commercial Policy 192.
Austria.
Consumption 67, 69, 70.
Hydro-electric Energy 91.
Imports 115, 117, 125, 136, 146.
Production 57.
Resources 39.
Trade Balance 119.
Trade: Commercial Policy 192.
Austria-Hungary.
Pre-war Conditions 3, 63, 70, 143.
B
Belgium.
Consumption 67, 69, 70.
Exports 115, 116, 121, 132, 143, 206.
Government Control 246.
Imports 115, 117, 125, 136, 146.
Integration, Horizontal 225.
Integration, Vertical 229.
Labour Costs 175.
Mining Districts 59.
Office belge des Cokes (Belgian Coke
Office) 246.
Office national des Charbons (National Coal Office) 246.
Output per Man-shift 109, 211.
Prices 198 201.
Production ' 54, 56-58, 197, 208, 216.
Resources 39.
I
Belgium (continued).
Thermo-electric Energy Production
79.
Trade: Commercial Policy 192.
Trade Balance 119.
Wages: Earnings per Man-shift 213.
Brazil.
Consumption 70.
Imports 115, 117, 125, 147.
Trade: Commercial Policy 192.
Trade Balance 119.
Bulgaria.
Trade: Commercial Policy 192.
Canada.
Consumption 67, 69, 70.
Exports 115, 116.
Hvdro-electric Energy 91.
Imports 115, 117, 125, 137, 147.
Labour Costs 175.
Production 54, 56-58, 63.
Resources 39.
Trade: Commercial Policy 192.
Trade Balance 119.
Cartel, International Coke 250.
Cartels, Regional 4.
Chile.
Consumption 69, 70.
Imports 115.
Trade: Commercial Policy 192.
China.
Consumption 48, 67, 69, 70.
Exports 115, 116, 121, 143.
Imports 115, 117.
Integration, Horizontal 226.
Production 54, 56, 57, 62.
Resources 39.
Trade: Commercial Policy 192.
Trade Balance 119.
World War 6.
Coal.
Chemical Analysis 21.
Classification 18, 19, 21.
Consumption 23, 44, 48, 51, 67, 69,
70, 81.
— 254 —
Coal (continued).
Exports 115, 116, 121, 130, 143.
Geological Analysis 18, 19.
Imports 117, 125, 134, 146.
Output per Man-shift 109, 211.
Production 54-60, 62.
Uses 23, 44, 48, 80.
World Resources 39.
Coal Miner, Definition of 28.
Coal Mining.
Activities 28.
Commercial Organisation 183.
Definition of 17, 30.
Mechanisation 106.
Methods 24.
New Facilities 101.
Collective Agreements 4.
Compensation, Accident 5.
Competition, Factors of 158.
Regulation of 179.
Consumption 11.
General Manufacturing 51.
New Techniques of 81.
Costs, Labour 163, 175, 176, 216.
Currency Manipulation 190.
Customs Duties 180.
Czechoslovakia
Consumption 67, 69, 70.
Exports 115, 116, 121, 133, 143, 206.
Government Control 247.
Imports 115, 117, 125, 136, 146.
Integration, Horizontal 226.
Integration, Vertical 230.
Labour Costs 175, 216.
Output per Man-shift 109, 211.
Prices 198 201.
Production ' 54, 56-58, 62, 197, 208.
. Resources 39.
Thermo-electric Energy 79.
Trade: Commercial Policy 192.
Trade Balance 119.
Uhlospol (National Cartel) 247.
Wages 213.
D
Dawes Plan 9.
Denmark.
Consumption 67, 69.
Imports 115, 117, 125, 136, 146.
Resources 39.
Trade Balance 119.
Trade: Commercial Policy 192.
E
Employment of Young Persons.
See Young Persons, Employment of.
Energy.
Consumption 36, 37.
Hydro-electric, by Countries 91.
Supply 32, 35.
Thermo-electric, by Countries 79.
Estonia.
Imports 115, 146.
Exports.
Bonuses and Premiums 184.
Freight Rate Allowances 185.
Quantities 206.
Subsidies 183.
F
Finland.
Consumption 69.
Hydro-electric Energy 91.
Imports 115, 125, 146.
Trade: Commercial Policy 192.
France.
Amalgamations 4.
Comité central des Houillères de
France 4, 243.
Consumption 48, 67, 69, 70.
Convention des Gailleteries 244.
Costs of Mining 160.
Exports 115, 116, 121, 133, 143, 206.
Government Control 243.
Hydro-electric Energy 91.
Imports 115, 117, 125, 133, 146.
Integration, Horizontal 225.
Integration, Vertical 229.
Labour Costs 175, 216.
Mining Districts 60.
Output per Man-shift 109, 211.
Prices 198, 201.
Production 54, 56, 58, 59, 62, 197.
Resources 39.
Thermo-electric Energy 79.
Trade: Commercial Policy 192.
Trade Balance 119.
Wages 213.
Fuel Economies 94.
Fuel Substitutes G
2, 11, 84.
Germany.
Cartels 235.
Consumption 48, 51, 67, 69, 70.
Embargo on Imports 9.
Energy Supply 36.
Exports 115, 116, 121, 129, 143, 206.
Government Control 235.
Hydro-electric Energy 91.
Imports 115, 117, 125, 136, 147.
Integration, Horizontal 224.
Integration, Vertical 228.
Labour Costs 175, 176, 216.
Mechanisation 171.
Mining Districts 59.
Output per Man-shift 109, 168, 211.
Prices 198, 201.
Production 34, 54, 56-59, 62, 197.
Resources 39.
Rhenish-Westphalian Coal Syndicate
4, 187, 235, 236.
— 255 —
Germany (continued).
Thermo-electric Energy 79.
Trade.
Agreements 189.
Balance 119.
Commercial Policy 192.
Wages 173, 178, 213.
Government Control : National Schemes
232.
Great Britain.
Coal Mines Act, 1911 5.
Coal Mines Act, 1930 232.
Consumption 36. 48, 51, 67, 69, 70.
Costs 165.
Derating Scheme 186.
Exports 115, 116, 121, 129, 143.
Fuel Economies 96.
Government Control 232.
Hydro-electric Energy 91.
Imports 117.
Integration, Horizontal 223.
Integration, Vertical 230.
Labour Costs 175, 177.
Mechanisation 170.
Minimum Wage Act, 1912 5.
Mining Districts 60.
Output per Man-shift 109, 168.
upj/-»pc
165
" The Limitation of the Vend ", 1.
Production 1-3, 7, 34, 54, 56-59, 62.
Thermo-electric Energy Production
79.
Trade.
Agreements 188.
Balance 119.
Commercial Policy 192.
Wages 173.
(See also United Kingdom.)
Great Depression 11, 75, 181,199, 249.
Greece.
Consumption 69.
Imports 115, 117,
H 125.
Trade: Commercial Policy 192.
Hungary.
Consumption 48, 67, 69, 70.
Imports 115, 117, 146.
Production 57.
Resources 39.
Trade Balance 119.
Trade: Commercial Policy 192.
Hours of Work 4, 14.
I
India.
Consumption 48, 51, 67, 69, 70.
Exports 121, 143.
Integration 231.
Mining Districts 60.
Production 54, 56, 58, 62.
India (continued).
Resources 39.
Trade Balance 119.
Trade: Commercial Policv 192.
World War 6.
Indo-China, French.
Production 57.
Industrial Revolution 2.
Integration, Horizontal 221.
Integration, Vertical 227.
International Action 248.
International Labour Organisation 12,
13.
International Miners' Federation 13.
Ireland.
Consumption 69.
Imports 115, 117, 125, 146.
Trade Balance 119.
Trade: Commercial Policy 192.
Italy.
Consumption 48, 67, 69, 70.
Hydro-electric Energy 91.
Imports 115, 117, 125, 136, 146.
Post-War Conditions 7.
Resources 39.
Trade Balance 119.
Trade: Commercial Policy 192.
J
Japan.
Consumption 48, 51, 67, 69, 70.
Control of the Leading Industries
Act, 1934 247.
Exports 115, 116, 121, 143.
Fuel Economies 99.
Government Control 247.
Hydro-electric Energy 91.
Imports 115, 117, 125, 147.
Integration, Horizontal 227.
Integration, Vertical 231.
Labour Costs 175.
Production 54, 56, 58, 59, 62.
Resources 39.
Thermo-electric Energy 79.
Trade Balance 119.
Trade: Commercial Policy 192.
World War 6.
Jevons, W. Stanley 2.
Jevons, H. Stanley 5.
L
Latvia.
Consumption 69.
Imports 115, 146.
Trade: Commercial Policy 192.
League of Nations 11, 13, 74.
Lithuania.
Imports 115, 146.
Luxemburg.
Consumption 67.
— 256 —
M
Manchuria.
Consumption 48, 67, 69, 70.
Exports 116, 121, 133, 143.
Imports 117.
Production 54, 56, 62.
Trade Balance 119.
Mechanisation 12, 169.
N
Nationalisation of the Coal-Mining
Industry 8.
Netherlands.
Consumption 48, 67, 69, 70.
Exports 115, 116, 121, 143, 206.
Government Control 247.
Imports 115, 117, 125, 136, 146.
Integration, Horizontal 225.
Integration, Vertical 230.
Labour Costs 175, 216.
Output per Man-shift 109, 211.
Prices 198, 201.
Production 54, 56, 58, 63, 197.
Resources 39.
Thermo-electric Energy Production
79.
Trade Balance 119.
Trade: Commercial Policy 192.
Wages 213.
World War 6.
New Zealand.
Consumption 69, 70.
Hydro-electric Energy 91.
Imports 115, 117.
Resources 39.
Trade: Commercial Policy 192.
Norway.
Consumption 67, 69.
Hydro-electric Energy 91.
Imports 115, 117, 125, 136, 146.
Resources 39.
Trade: Commercial Policy 192.
O
Output 9, 15.
Anthracite Coal, by Countries 57.
Bituminous Coal, by Countries 56.
Control 1.
Energy Supply, World Total 32.
Gas Coke 59.
Lignite and Brown Coal 57.
Metallurgical Coke, by Countries 58.
Per Man-shift 109,
167-169, 211.
P
Raw
Coal
54,
55,
56.
Peat Bogs 17.
Peru.
Trade: Commercial Policy 192.
Petroleum 85.
Poland.
Consumption 48, 51, 67, 69, 70.
Embargo on Imports 9.
Exports 115,116, 121, 132, 143, 206.
Government Control 241.
Imports 117, 146.
Integration, Horizontal 226.
Integration, Vertical 230.
Labour Costs 175, 216.
Mining Districts 60.
Output per Man-shift 109, 169, 211.
Polish Coal Convention 242.
Prices 198 201.
Production ' 7, 54, 56, 62, 197, 208.
Resources 39.
Thermo-electric Energy 79.
Trade.
Balance 119.
Agreements 189.
Commercial Policy 192.
Wages 213.
Portugal.
Consumption 69.
Imports 125, 146.
Trade: Commercial Policy 192.
Prices
At Pithead 198.
Discrimination 186.
Export 201-205.
Regulation of 1.
Production 9, 11.
By Countries 197.
By Major Districts 60.
Collieries 27.
Costs 208.
Methods 24.
Pre-war and Post-war Conditions 62.
(See also Output.)
Productivity of Labour.
Output per Man-shift 109, 167, 211.
Q
Quota Limitations 181.
R
Railroads.
See Railways.
Railways.
Demand for Coal 82.
Preferential Freight Rates 185.
Revenue Freight 83.
Rationalisation 12.
Regulation of Prices.
See Prices, Regulation of.
Rhenish-Westphalian Coal Syndicate.
See Germany.
Rhodesia, Southern.
Coal Resources 39.
Rumania.
Imports 115, 117.
Trade: Commercial Policy 192.
— 257 —
S
Saar.
Consumption 67.
Production 54, 63.
Resources 39.
Thermo-electric Energy 79.
Shipping.
Fuel used 88.
Motive Power 86.
Net Tonnage 84.
Spain.
Consumption 48, 67, 69, 70.
Exports 116.
Imports 115, 117, 125, 136, 146.
Production 63.
Resources 39.
Trade.
Balance 119.
Commercial Policy 192.
World War 6.
Substitutes for Coal 2, 11, 84.
Sweden.
Consumption 67, 69, 70.
Hvdro-electric Energy 91.
Imports 115, 117, 125, 136, 146.
Resources 39.
Trade Balance 119.
Trade: Commercial Policy 192.
World War 6.
Switzerland.
Consumption 67, 69, 70.
Hydro-electric Energy 91.
Imports 115, 117, 125, 136, 147.
Resources 39.
Trade Balance 119.
Trade: Commercial
T Policy 192.
World War 6.
Taxes, Relief from 186.
Trade 9, 15, 116.
Agreements 187.
Changes in 142.
Commercial Policy 192.
Import or Export Balances 119.
Relative Importance of Coal 113.
Structure of World Trade 138-139.
Truck System, Abolition of 4.
Turkey.
Exports 121. 143.
Trade Balance 119.
Trade: Commercial Policy 192.
U
Union of South Africa.
Consumption 48, 67, 69, 70.
Exports 115, 116, 121, 132, 143.
Government Control 247.
Integration, Vertical 232.
Labour Costs 175, 216.
Union of South Africa (continued).
Production 54, 56, 62.
Resources 39.
Thermo-electric Energy 79.
Trade Balance 119.
Trade: Commercial Policy 192.
Transvaal Chamber of Mines 247.
Transvaal Coal Owners' Association
248.
World War 6.
United Kingdom.
Exports 206.
Output per Man-shift 211.
Prices 198, 201.
Production 197, 208.
Resources 39.
Wages 213.
(See also Great Britain.)
United States of America.
Bituminous Coal Act, 1937 239.
Bituminous Coal Conservation Act,
1935 239.
Consumption 48, 51, 67, 69, 70.
Energy Supply 35.
Exports 115, 116, 121, 132, 143.
Fuel Economies 95.
Government Control 239.
Hvdro-electric Energy 91.
Imports 115, 117, 125, 137, 147.
Integration, Horizontal 222.
Integration, Vertical 231.
Labour Costs 175, 178.
Mechanisation 171, 172.
Mining Capacity 111.
Mining Districts 60.
N.R.A. Codes, 1933 239.
Output per Man-shift 109, 169.
Prices 164.
Production 3, 7, 34, 54, 56-59, 62.
Resources 39.
Thermo-electric Energy 79.
Trade Balance 119.
Trade: Commercial Policy 192.
Wages 174.
World War 6.
Upper Silesia 4, 7, 63.
Uruguay.
Imports 115.
U.S.S.R.
Consumption 37, 48, 67, 69, 70.
Exports 115, 116, 121, 143.
Imports 117, 146.
Integration, Vertical 227.
Mining Districts 60.
Production 34, 54, 56, 57, 58, 62.
Resources 39.
Trade Balance 119.
Trade: Commercial Policy 192.
W
Wages.
Earnings per Man-shift 213.
Rates, Regional Variations 171.
258 —
Wages (continued).
Payment 4.
World War 5, 6, 7, 104, 194.
Y
Yugoslavia.
Consumption
69.
Yugoslavia (continued).
Imports 115, 117, 146.
Output 57.
Resources 39.
Trade: Commercial Policy
Young Persons.
Employment of 4.
192.