The Coal Situation

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen,--We have heard during the past week that Canada's greatest problem is the education of her children. We all agree to that statement, and we can add that the greatest industrial and in some respects domestic problem facing Ontario, and to a lesser degree Quebec, is that of securing a suitable fuel in sufficient quantities to heat our homes and furnish power for our industries. How great that problem is, is not appreciated until we experience a winter like the one that is just passing. (Laughter) Coal has been the universal topic, discussed at mylady's breakfast table, in the sewing circle, and wherever people have been gathered together. As late as the 17th century, however, laws are said to have existed in many of the important cities of Europe against its use. The coal industry is a comparatively young one, and it was only after the invention of the steam engine and the development of the railroads that mining was carried on, in any extensive way. In America the production has grown from one million tons to over six-hundred million tons in about ninety years. No

--------------------------------------------------

Doctor E. S. Moore is professor of Economic Geology in the University of Toronto. He spent thirteen years in Pennsylvania as professor of Geology and for five years was Dean of the State College of Mines. He has visited most of the anthracite areas in Pennsylvania, is familiar with many of the soft coal areas in the Eastern United States, and knows the situation in Canada.

--------------------------------------------------

great manufacturing industrial nation has been developed which has not had large coal supplies, either within her borders or within ready access. As examples we have Great Britain, the United States, Germany and France. It is unnecessary to dwell upon the Ruhr problem of today.

It is rather astounding to find that the coal produced in the world in the year 1920, the last year for which I have comprehensive figures, if sold at the mines at the average price per ton prevailing on this continent, would have been worth more than double the value of the petroleum (at the wells), gold, silver, copper, lead and zinc produced in the world for that year, or more than five times the value of all the gold, silver, copper, lead and zinc produced in the world for that year.

When we begin to talk of replacing all coal by electric energy for heating and power purposes it is interesting to consider that in our most efficient steam engines one pound of coal will produce one horse-power of energy, and a very inefficient engine will give one horse-power for thirty to thirty-five pounds of coal. Our relatively small annual Canadian production of coal, of about fifteen million tons will carry two thousand times as many pounds. A pound of coal gives on a very conservative estimate ten thousand British thermal units (B.T.U.), and one B.T.U. furnished per second will give one and four-tenths horse-power if all utilized. You can figure out the horse-power in the coal produced on this continent in a year. It has been very roughly estimated that the hydroelectric energy available in Canada is about seventeen million horse-power. After the experience of many Torontonians this winter they will be interested in the first mention of coal in literature. In his famous work entitled Meteorology, written about 500 B.C., Aristotle says that those substances which have more of earth than fire in them are called coal-like substances. His description would serve excellently for much of the material sold under the name of coal in Toronto during the past winter. (Laughter) The life of the anthracite mines must have been prolonged considerably by mining this type of rock.

Perhaps I should say a word or two regarding the so-called Sudbury coal since I am so often asked regarding it. I have not much time to go into the matter in detail here, but I wish to say that I regard this as a solid bitumen left as a residue from petroleum. It is not a coal in the true sense of the word, and we do not have any coal anywhere in the world in rocks older than the Devonian system. It was in the Devonian period that the land plants, which have produced all our coal, first became abundant on the earth. We cannot hold out any hope of finding coal in our PreCambrian rocks.

When we have in North America about five-sevenths of all the coal in the world and there are enough mines on this continent to produce from one-third to nearly one-half more coal than we can utilize in a year why should we shiver for the want of coal? In the first place the coal industry is woefully over-capitalized and over-manned, and an attempt is being made by the operators to earn an income on the excessive capital and by the miners to make a living where they only get a chance to work from two hundred to two hundred and ninety days a year. According to Dr. Smith, the Director of the United States Geological Survey, the bituminous mines of the United States are capitalized at about one billion nine hundred million dollars, and the anthracite mines at four hundred million, necessitating a return on every ton of bituminous coal produced in the United States in a year of $3.50, and on the anthracite of $4.50 to $5.00 per ton. In Alberta there are said to be over three hundred and seventy mines capable of producing between three and four times the present production, and there are estimated to be over one hundred and twenty-five thousand more men in the coal industry on this continent than are necessary to produce all the coal needed. The coal industry is a very conservative one, chiefly because it is to a large degree an inherited industry and because of the conditions under which the men live and work. Young Englishspeaking men do not as a rule go into it unless born into it.

The organization of the large numbers of nonEnglish-speaking miners has been very powerful, and we can say that on the whole the miners are more radical than men in most industries. This, however, does not hold true for all sections of the continent as many of these men are excellent citizens. My own experience in organizing technical educational work among them has led me to think highly of many of them. I might say that very few men in this audience would care to do the work they are doing.

When troublesome times come into the industry the unscrupulous labour-leader and operator-and I am sorry to say that we have some of both-have a tremendous hold on the public because of the nature of the industry and because we cannot get along even for a single day without coal for our homes and industries. We cannot ship it in sufficient quantities across the continent to supply even temporary demands as we can almost any other product of the mines. The transportation systems fail us in times of stress as the coal problem is largely one of transportation on this continent. The mines in parts of Pennsylvania have not had more than twenty-two to twenty-five percent car capacity part of the time this winter, and if it had not been for the supplies in storage, and the production by the non-union mines last summer, the public would have been absolutely at the mercy of the Miners' Union. No one could have taken the place of these men in the mines owing to the necessity of having a large proportion of experienced men for this type of work underground.

On account of the factors mentioned the industrial relations in this industry need very careful handling in the future, especially since the miners are so closely related in their unions in Canada and the States. I noticed the other day that the Nova Scotia miners received their instructions from the union officials in the States.

I am glad to say that information received from many sources indicates that there will not be another strike this year. The bituminous miners have signed an agreement for another year, and the anthracite agreement will probably be renewed for another year. It expires on September the 1st. Wages will, however, remain at the peak. They are now about $7 a day in the bituminous fields and although a little lower in the anthracite fields, they are from one hundred and twenty-five to two hundred percent higher than they were before the war. This means that the cost of coal will be high. It should be considerably lower than it was this year for bituminous coal, which was absurdly high in Ontario, but we cannot expect anthracite to drop much, not at least until the competition of bituminous coal becomes very keen. We have been quite fairly treated in Toronto in so far as anthracite is concerned this winter. The "Old line" companies received from $8 to $8.50 per long ton at the mines for prepared sizes in stove and nut, and less for other sizes, while the "Independents" have received as high as $12 to $12.50 at the mines, for much coal sold. The freight from Scranton to Toronto is $4.43 a net ton. There is no duty on anthracite.

How long will Pennsylvania anthracite last? From figures for resources and from additions to those figures, for coal now being investigated at depths greater than three thousand feet, I have concluded that the anthracite of Pennsylvania cannot maintain' the present annual production for more than about one hundred and fifty years. Since, however, Canada receives practically all her anthracite from the Wyoming Basin which now supplies about half the anthracite produced on the Continent, at the present rate of production this basin will be exhausted in about thirty-five years, and we cannot expect large supplies from Pennsylvania for many more years. When speaking to the Mining Institution in February, I estimated twenty-five to thirty years as the limit of time Canada would receive any Pennsylvania anthracite worth mentioning, and also suggested that long before that time we would have to begin to use some substitute for this type of coal, because of the increase in cost of securing it and owing to its scarcity. Since that date, Mr. Brown, engineer for one of the large anthracite companies, has presented a paper stating that the resources of the Wyoming Basin will be exhausted in thirty-six years.

What will the substitutes be? A number have been suggested; solar and atomic energy-factors which we may safely leave to astronomers and physicists for the present; electric energy; hydroelectric energy should be developed as rapidly as possible and whatever cost will permit. This type of energy should be used chiefly for power and for intermittent heating, such as cooking and in portable heaters. It cannot be regarded under present conditions as a possible substitute for coal in general heating. We can also help out the hydro-electric supply of energy by developing large power stations at suitable points, and using coal to develop electricity. Electricity can now be carried four to five hundred miles, and it is contemplated to transmit it much farther.

Heating by crude oil: very fine, indeed, while the oil lasts, but most of the oil wells on this continent will be exhausted long before the anthracite. There is the question of peat. This, like electricity, will be a good auxiliary in heating in grates for fires in spring and fall. It has greater bulk and lower calorific power than coal, and these factors will prevent its taking the place of coal in a climate like this for general heating and power purposes.

They have good anthracite in Wales, but it is comparatively scarce and production is not large. It is practically all taken for the home markets and those on the European Continent. It would cost more than the Pennsylvania anthracite, and it does not stand shipping as well, but it has a lower ash content. I believe that most of the coal which was shipped from Wales last fall was semi-anthracite. It is quite a friable coal and it breaks up with handling and in shipping.

Since there is very little anthracite on this continent, outside of Pennsylvania we will have to depend on bituminous coal in some form for our domestic fuel, and of course it will be as it has been in the past, our main fuel in the factories and on the railroads. We cannot afford, however, to use soft coal as a domestic fuel in its raw condition. We cannot afford, however, to use soft coal as a domestic fuel in its raw condition. We cannot tolerate the waste in gas, tar, motor fuel, etc., and we cannot put up with the dirt and the increasing number of fires resulting from its use. Bituminous coal can be used in central heating plants in connection with large apartment houses and groups of buildings where there is a trained fireman kept on hand to regulate the draughts and operate the furnace in conformity with the proper smoke nuisance laws.

For ordinary household purposes the best substitute for anthracite is coke. It is only fair to say I arrived at the following conclusions from an independent study of the problem, and not from statements which have appeared recently in various newspapers. These conclusions were set forth in an address which I gave before the Toronto Branch of the Canadian Mining Institute in February, before the discussions on this topic took place at Montreal and Ottawa. The conclusions are: a good coking coal should be secured and coked in the large cities in by-product coke ovens of the most modern type. Instead of making the ordinary metallurgical coke with only two or three percent volatile content, a volatile content of around 10 percent should be left, and this fuel will then be nearer anthracite in composition than ordinary coke. It will kindle more readily and it will hold the fire much better so that it need not be fired at full blast to keep it from going out. Such coke is now being made in Alberta by the Crow's Nest Pass Coal Company for domestic use, according to a recent statement by the president of that company.

From figures which I have secured from different companies concerned in coking operations the cost of coking, or the conversion cost, is taken care of by the value of the by-products secured, which consist of gas, ammonium sulphate, tar and motor-fuel. There will be from good coking coal about six thousand four hundred cubic feet of gas of five hundred B.T.U. per cubic foot, and this could be furnished to gas companies at from thirty to fifty cents per M, with sulphur removed. Lump coke would amount to about sixty-seven percent, and the coke breeze to about eight to ten percent of the coal charged.

Coking operations should be carried on on a large scale, and the coal secured from large companies on a favourable contract basis, bringing the cost of the coal laid down at Toronto well below ten dollars a ton. A large initial outlay of capital would be necessary.

Let us look at the possible source of good bituminous coal. Unfortunately when Nature furnished Canada with good coal she put it all in the far West and East. There is perhaps twenty-five million tons of lignite in the region south of James Bay. Outside of this occurrence, Ontario and Quebec are without coal deposits. In Nova Scotia there is good bituminous coal, and in Alberta and British Columbia there is an abundance of high-grade bituminous and semi-bituminous and a great deal of semi-anthracite coal. Some of this coal would make good domestic fuel if we had it here. Some of it does not stand shipping well, and a dusty coal is objectionable even if it be anthracite. There is an abundance of bituminous and semi-bituminous coal in Pennsylvania and West Virginia lying just south of us.

Let us consider the possible sources from the standpoint of cost. To have accurate data on this matter I went to the offices of the C.N.R., where Mr. G. F. Smith very kindly furnished the following figures on rates, as rates fixed by the line at a low figure to encourage the shipment of coal from Canadian mines. Sydney Mines to Montreal: $4.50 a net ton; to Toronto, about $7.00; McCann, Nova Scotia to Toronto, $5.70.

I then consulted Mr. Fred. Wood, the Ontario representative of the Merchants Marine who kindly furnished me with the following statement: water rates from Sydney to Montreal, $1.50 a ton in cargo lots, and $2.50 Montreal to Toronto, with difficulty in getting regular transportation.

Since Nova Scotia has from five to eight billion tons of coal this would certainly be a proper source of supply if the St. Lawrence canals were deepened. Further, the deepening of these canals would permit us to get in coal by ocean-going ships from England, Virginia and elsewhere when necessary.

The freight rates from the West are as follows: Camrose, Alberta, to Toronto, about $12.50; Dinant, Lethbridge or Fernie practically the same; Coalspur to Port Arthur, $7.10; Drumheller, $6.70; Fernie, $6.90; Lethbridge, $6.30. Mr. Wood said that there was no standard water rate from Port Arthur to Toronto, but he would estimate that the rate would be about $3.00 with at least 25 cents a ton additional for transhipment at Port Arthur.

The main difficulty lies in the fact that the traffic to and from the West is in the wrong direction. The wheat and coal must both move eastward. Long haulage and trans-shipping results in much broken coal, but this does not matter if we are going to coke it since it is crushed before coking anyway. The rates from Pennsylvania and West Virginia are as follows: Clearfield, Pennsylvania, to Toronto, $3.09 net ton; West Virginia, via Ashtabula car ferry to Port Burwell and thence to Toronto, $3.81. The duty on bitumious coal which will pass through a three-quarter inch screen except for 5 percent, is 14 cents, and on lump, 53 cents per net ton. The average cost of bituminous coal at the mines in Pennsylvania in 1921 was $2.78 a ton, and in West Virginia, $2.84 a ton. The cost in Canada for the same year is given as $4.84 a ton for Nova Scotia, and $5.09 for Alberta. From the figures given one must leave to the judgment of the railway officials the question whether these freight rates can be much improved, and to business men the question of where our coal must be secured. It will in the long run be one of cost. We are all agreed that it would be the ideal thing to do if we could mine our Canadian coals and turn the value of twenty million tons of coal yearly into the mining industry of Canada. When the coal industry and the country generally need it we ought to have it, but the cost of bringing coal from Alberta to old Ontario in competition, not with the present prices of United States coal, but in competition with lower prices and a real effort on the part of the United States coal dealers to secure our trade seems prohibitive. I regret that, personally, I do not think it can be done. Perhaps in the face of this situation it is consoling to many Canadians to remember that the United States has to come to Canada for enormous supplies of paper and pulp, and for nearly all her nickel and asbestos, just to mention a few items. (Loud applause)

THE PRESIDENT presented the thanks of the Club to Dr. Moore for a very instructive address on a subject of great interest to the members of the Club.