January 26, 1917. THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN. 175 ______________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________ _______________________ __________________________________ 1914. SULPHATE OF AMMONIA IN 1916. In their report on the sulphate of ammonia market in 1916, Messrs. Bradbury and Hirsch, Liverpool, estimate, with all reserve, the production of ammonia in the United Kingdom as equivalent to 438,000 tons of sulphate, including that used in the manufacture of ammonia soda and munitions, and used for other chemical purposes. The production is distributed as follows:—Gasworks, 175.000 tons; iron works, 15,000 tons ; shale works, 58,U00 tons; coke and carbonising works and gas producers, 199,000—total, 438,000 tons. Geographically the productionis distributed as follows:— England, 319,000 tons ; Scotland, 116,000 tons ; Ireland, 3,000 tons—total, 438.000 tons. Exports during 1916, 259,500 tons; home consumption (for all purposes) in 1916, 178,500 tons; stocks to carry forward into 1917, 26,000 tons—total, 464,000 tons. ( Regarding the course of the market, Messrs. Bradbury and Hirsch say:—Export demand, which up to 1915 had been the main factor m determining the course of .the market, has not in 1916 been the determining factor—not because there has not been an adequate demand for export, though in some directions it has been greatly hampered by inflated freight rates, but because it has not been possible to satisfy it and at the same time to reserve an adequate supply for home fertilising and munition pm poses. The estimate for home consumption (all users) in 1916 is 50,000 tons higher than the similar figure .for 1915. Owing to the inflated price of nitrate of soda and scarcity of other nitrogenous fertilisers, the relative cheapness of sulphate of ammonia ought to bring about a much larger reversion to the use of it over the coming spring season; but to talk of reserving the entire output in the United Kingdom, as some economists are doing, is, if it refers to the immediate future, to talk nonsense. It would involve an entire revolution in home agi iculture, x and that cannot, for reasons obvious to agriculturists, be brought about in one season—or in two seasons, either. To attempt any such thing would be to cripple export business unnecessarily and at the same time to leave producers with unwieldy stocks to carry forward. There can be no question that a quite exceptional home demand for coke, and tar derivatives and ammonia for munitions for export, occasioned an extraordinary increase in carbonising in the United States in 1916. We are not aware of any reason why operations should be relaxed while the war in Europe continues, but it may well be questioned whether anything like the rate of in- crease which there has been in 1916 will be seen in 1917. There should be no shortage of supply to cover such licences to export as are issued, and, consequently, there should be no desperate competition for that supply. The course of the market is thus in the hands of the Government. It will not be determined by the world’s requirements in relation to the world’s output as it was in pre-war days. In regard to the market during the past year the average for exports was £17 7s. lOd. per ton. __________________________ COKE OVENS: A PATENTS APPLICATION. In the Patents Court on Wednesday Messrs. Simon- Carves Limited, trading as the By-Products Coke Oven Construction Company, applied for licence to use two German Koppers patents covering process and apparatus for the recovery of by-products from gases arising out of the carbonisation of coal and coke. The patents are 20870 of 1904 and 16386 of 1905. The application was opposed. Mr. Hunter Gray appeared for the applicants, with Mr. Terreil, K.C., to oppose on behalf of Mr. Victor Derry, one of the partners of the Koppers Coke Oven and By-Products Company, of Glossop Hoad, Sheffield, and Mr. Rudolph Morris for the controller of that company under the Board of Trade. Mr. Terrell objected to the jurisdiction of the Court, which he said he intended to test in the Chancery Division. The Patents Court was set up under the Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (Temporary Rules) Act, 1914, and an amending Act, and those Acts, by the amendment, applied to “ any patent or licence .the person entitled to the benefit of which is a subject of ’ any state at war with his Majesty.” There were three partners in the English firm of Koppers, Mr. Derry and two Germans, Koppers and another domiciled in England. The.^ar automatically put an end to the partnership, and Mr. Derry, under a recent decision, was carrying on the firm with the assets vested in him, the others having merely a lien on them. The beneficial interests in these patents being vested in Mr. Derry, they ,wei e not vested in the subject Of any state at war with his Majesty, and the Patents Court could not hear the application. The Controller of Patents said the hearing of evidence on behalf of the Board of Trade need not prejudice Mr. Terrell’s a ppi cation- to the Chancery Court, and the Boa- d of Trade already had the case of the opposing firm under observation. Mr. Terrell thereupon left the court with his client and witnesses. Mr. Gray said the applicants were one of the largest contractors engaged, through their plant, in the supply of explosives to the Ministry of Munitions, by whom they were controlled. The total cost of products supplied by or through their agency to the Government amounted to £380,OllO. They were also large contractors to the French Government. As to Koppers the practice hadexistedinthis country of Germans themselves holding patents here to prevent manufacture in this country, and themselves, through an English branch, supplying the plant, the profits of which went entirely to the Germans. The applicants had complained of Koppers making slanderous statements to the effect that they were infringing the Koppers patents. The opponent firm had written to clients of Messrs. Simon-Carves suggesting to them that the use of the latter’s recovery plant would lay the purchaser open to risks of action for infringement, and the applicants had lost contracts in consequence. The manager of the gas coke oven department of the applicant firm, Mr. E. Lloyd, deposed that there was a large demand for this plant, which would continue after the war was ended. The threats of infringement had related principally to the method of recove ing tar and ammonia. They concerned chiefly the heating coils. The Patents Controller said he would report to the Board of Trade. RUSSIAN COAL PRODUCTION IN 1915. The Council of the Congress of South Russian mining firms, has issued its report on the coal industry of Russia in the year 1915, the output being as follows :— Production <4 coal in poods.* Difference. Donetz basin .. Dombroff „ Ural ............ Mo'COw .......... Caucasus ... Turke tan... West Siberia .. East „ 1915. _____ 1,626,580,000.. .1/83,780.00. ..-57,200,000 78,610,000 . 27,090,000. 3,790,000... P ? 80,900,000." .. 231,010,000... .. 84,200,000...— 20,n00,0i)0...+ 4,080,000...—’ 9.400,000... 60,460,009... • 82,490,000...- 5,54 ‘,000 7,090,000 29,000 P ■ ? 1,590,000 2,175,420,000 * 62 poods = 1 ton. Unfortunately, the total for the past year Unfortunately, the total for the past year cannot be subjected to comparison with that of 1914, because down to the time of preparing the statement, particulars had notods. First half-year. Second half-y^ar. 1915. 1914. 1915. 1914. 1OO'<2 ... 41 50 ... 53'65 ... 63'98 790 35 ...896'75 ...836'230 787'03 836’72 ...877'27 ...719'89 ...750 99 53'65 ... 63’98 ...169'99 ...100'02 Stock at beginning ... Produc 'd in the period Di-posed of ,, ,, Stock at end............. In the first half of 1915 the production of mineral fuel was less than in the corresponding period of 1914 by 106,400,000 poods or by 11’9 per cent., but exceeded the pro lucrion < f the second half of 1915 by 3,320,000 poods, or 0 42 per cent. The production of coal and anthracite in the second half of 1915 was greater than the production in the corresponding period in 1914 by 49,200,000 poods, or 62 per cent. The discrepancy between the amount of coal produced, and that despatched by rail, during the last months of 1915, led to the accumulation of unprecedented stocks which, at the end of the year amounted to nearly 170.000.000 poods; an immense increase (70 per cent.) compared with the stocks at the beginning of 1915. The total quantity of mineral fuel disposed of in 1915 showed a deficit of 71,650,000 poods, or 4*4 per cent., compared with that of the preceding year. Of the various classes of coal, there was an increase in the quantity consumed at the mines, for briquetting, and for local sales. But in other categories there was a distinct decrease. Obstacl s to an increase in the regular production of coal in this basin were the war conditions, the insufficient number of workmen, the scarcity of building mateiials, and also insufficient workshops for the construction of the necessary equipment. To a large extent the development of hard coal output was checked by the reduced export by rail, which in normal times might amount to 1,400,000,000 to 1,500,000,000 poods per annum. The number of workmen engaged during 1915 in producing had coal varied very considerably from month to month, as well as in comparison with the monthly numbers recorded for 1914. The lowest figure was 155,0OO in March, against 180,760 in March 1914; and the highest was ,2o9,100 in November, against 203,060 in November 1914. During the last, four months of the year the number of workmen engaged increased considerably, but the quality of the men was poor, the first mobilisation in 1914 having deprived the coal industry of a large number of experienced miners, as is evidenced by the considerable decline in the monthly output per man. which fell, in the second half of 1915. to 733 poods. The average production per man and month (including all classes of workmen) in 1914, was 753 poods in the first half, and 757 poods in the second half; but in 1915 it was 779 pouds in the first half, and 733 poods in the second half. At the beginning of 1916, the Statistical Bureau of the Council of the Congress of Mining Industrialists of South Russia collected all the available information on the production, distribution, and stocks of coal in the Donetz basin. These details were obtained from a hitherto unprecedented number of collieries—viz., 368, including 199 coal mines and 169 anthracite mines. Although these sources of information are numeiically small compared with* the total number of firms working in the Donetz basin, they represent nearly 95 per cent, of the total production of that basin in the year 1915— that is to say, 1,626,589,000 poods, an amount lower than the 1914 output by 57,200,000, or 3'4 per cent. The production of mineral fuel in the Donetz basin in 1915 reported by the district engineers totalled 1,596,643,130 poods—namely, 1,31'3.195,371 poods of common coal and 293,447,759 poods of anthracite. The quantity produced reported by the Statistical Bureau differs from that compiled by the district engineers by 29,940,000 poods, or 1'8 per cent. The produ-tion of coke in the Donetz basin was carried on at 25 collieries and 10 blast furnace works, and amounted to 254,758,841 poods, which, in com- parison with the corresponding production of the preceding year, shows a decline of 23,650,762 poods, or 8 per cent. The number of coke ovens existing on January 1, 1916, was 5,754, of which 5,014 were in operation. \ The production of briquettes in the Donetz basin during the year under review was carried on by six concerns, ordinary coil briquettes being made by five, and anthracite briquettes by one only, the E.T. Pa-a- monoff Association. The total output was 23,840,000 poods, or 3,450,000 poods more than in 1914. , Coke Oven By-products. The recovery of by-pro lucts at the mines and works of the Donetz basin was effected by a number of concerns:—The South Russian Rock Salt Company, the Olchoff Works Company, the Coke, Benzol, &c., Works (Yasinovsk), the Gosudarievo-Bairiaksky Mines Company, the Russo-Belgian Company, the Russian Providence Company, the Petroff Russo-Belgian Com- pany, the Novorossisk Company, the Olivier Piette Company, the South Russian Dniepre Metallurg cal Company, the South Russian Coal Company, the Constantinovsky Company. The average number of regenerative coke- ovens at work in the year under review, was 1,063, or 55 more than in 1914, the aggre- gate production of coke being 102 857,612 poods. - The yield of finished products was as follows :— 1915. 1914. Crude products : P<> ds. Poods. Coaliar . 3,280,811 ... 2.929,-935 A mmoniacal liquor 301,358 ... 1,223,262 Finished products: Sulphate of ammonia .. 726,842 ... 1,048,293 Aqueous ammonia 12,124 3,996 Benzol : 305,249 47,550 Heavy and light oils . 1,242,215 902,994 Pitch . 1,539,651 ... 1,250,573 The Ural. According to information received from the Council of the Congress of the Ural Mining Industrialists, only seven of the 11 mines producing coal were working during the whole of 1915. The production of coal amounted to 63,620,000 poods, which in comparison with the production of 1914 is a shrinkage of 9,730.000, or 13’3 per cent. According to the Ural Mining Administration, the production of coal in the Ural was 78,659,062 poods. The absolute reduction in the output compared with the production of the preceding year was not great. However, the importance of such a production was very appreciable in view of the in- creased demand for Ural coal owing to the impossibility of obtaining Siberian coal, on the one hand, and to the extended practice of using coal in place of wood as fuel on the o1 her. Moreover, the lack of Donetz coal caused Ural coal to be sent into the interior of Russia for railway use. The twentieth Congress of Ural Mining Industrialists found it necessary to call th^ attention of the Government to this trade, and to ask that the exportation of coal from the Ural should not be per- mitted until the production was increased, or until it had been shown possible to obtain Siberian coal again. This request, however, was not acceded to. Moscow Basin. Recently the position of the coal industry in Central Russia has acquit ed particular interest for Moscow industrial circles in view of the great difficulties in obtaining supplies of coal from other districts. The infoi mation collected by the Statistical Bureau of the Council of the Congress of Mining Industrialists of South Russia, from the Moscow and Orel-Toul mining districts, on the production and consumption and stocks of coal in the Moscow mining district in the course of 1915 makes it possible to give a review of that year for the district in question. According to the Statistical Bureau, the production of coal in the Moscow district was 23,740,93'2 poods, which, compared with the pro- duction of 1914, marks an increase of 6,471,332 poods, or 37'47 per cent. According to the data furnished by the district engineers, the coal output was 27/86,420 poods, an increase of 9,816,820 poods, or 56 per cent. The number of workmen engaged at the end of the year was 2.270, or a decline of 479 compared with 1914. The labour question, in the Moscow basin, as in other branches of industry in Russia, became extremely acute in 1915. According to the president of the Moscow Fuel Committee, Prof. K. V. Kirsch, and the president of the Council of the Congress of Coal Producers of Central Russia, D. V. Margoit, the production of coal in.the Moscow basin could be raised to 90,000.000 poods a year ; but even such an immense increase would not suffice for the fuel needs of factories and works in the Moscow region, the calorific value of Moscow coal being only 50 per cent, that of Donetz coal. The employment of wood or peat as fuel by industrial establishments near the sources of supply, might liberate a considerable portion of the Moscow basin coal for the uses of Moscow city. Caucasus. According to the monthly information supplied by the Statistical Bureau of South Russian Mining Indus- trialists, the stock of coal in 1915 was 170.000 poods against 85,000 poods in . 1914. The production for* these years was 3,788.000 poods and 4 084,000 poods respectively. The average number of workmen in 1915 was 5'26, which shows an increase of 31 compared with the preceding year.—Gorno-Zavodskoye Dy do. ______________________________ Appointments as certifying surgeons under the Factory and Workshop Acts are vacant at Bridport (Dorset), Chester-le-Street (Durham); and Wells.