New York Paper - Anthracite Mining Costs

Edward W. Parker,* Philadelphia, Pa.—At the New York meeting of the Institute a year ago, Mr. R. V. Norris presented a paper on anthracite mining costs, in which he gave the results of an intensive study of this subject by the Engineers' Committee of the United States Fuel Administration. Within the last 30 days, the Federal Trade Commission has issued an official report on the same subject, which covers a longer period of time and comprises statistics of realization values and margins that were pot comprehended in the paper by Mr. Norris. As, however, the data utilized by Mr. Norris formed also a part of the basis for the report of the Federal Trade Commission, a brief digest of the latter may not be out of place at this meeting. The report of the Federal Trade Commission covers primarily the two calendar years 1917 and 1918, divided into five periods which furnish opportunity for the study of how the influence of certain definite factors affected either the cost of production or the price, or both, during the 24 months. The first period, January to April, 1917, which may be considered the basic period, comprised the 4 months in 1917 during which the wage agreement of May, 1916, without modification, was in effect. During this period, the labor cost on fresh-mined coal is placed by the Commission's report at $1.79 per gross ton, the total cost at $2.66, the average realization at $3.29, and the "margin" (sales realization over total f.o.b. mine cost) at $0.63. The second period covers the four months from May 1 to August 31, during which time the first of the supplemental wage agreements (supplemental to the agreement of 1916) was in effect. It was also the period during which the summer discounts were in effect and when prices were practically fixed by a voluntary agreement between the operators and the Federal Trade Commission. It was, further, the period in which the 75 cents differential on prepared sizes permitted to the individual operators by the Federal Trade Commission began; at that time, also, on account of war conditions an unusually large quantity of steam sizes were marketed at exceptionally good prices. On account of the two latter conditions, not explained in the Commission's report, the "margin"1 on operating