DETAIL B.-Estimated cost and annual charges for standby boat and barges— Continued (b) Sinking fund to amortize cost of towboat and barges in 20 years at 3% percent compound interest (0.03536 X $310,000). (c) Towboat insurance (fire, accident, etc.); 2.5 percent of Protection and indemnity insurance, 1' percent of value of Hull coverage; 6 barges, at 50 cents per day per barge__ (h) Interest for 3 months, account collection period, at 6 per- Total_ $10,961. 60 2,750.00 1, 510.00 1,095.00 73. 22 6, 200.00 2, 928.96 1,500.00 45, 618. 78 684.28 15, 500.00 61, 803. 06 DETAIL C.-Detail of delays encountered in making round trips 1 The movements from these ports to Catlettsburg constitute the shortest hauls encountered on these streams. It follows, therefore, that thre are more round trips made per year from these ports and show more delays encountered because of bottlenecks due to congested traffic at locks and bends. NOTE.-Column 3 on detail I will show total hours consumed per round trips. Those figures will include the above delays to prove the average speed of 111⁄2 miles per hour. DETAIL D.-Boats and barges required and their distribution to properly handle the complete movement of 15,000,000 tons 1 Not necessary to have barges at this particular point because other empty barges will be available, such as stand-by barges. DETAIL E.-REPORT ON BARGE LOADING POINTS, BIG SANDY CANALIZATION PROJECT (J. H. Dickerson, mining engineer, Huntington, W. Va.) It is not possible to fix the location of loading points, and figure the tonnage from each, for a movement of 15,000,000 tons of coal annually over a 50-year period, as set up for this project. There are so many uncertain conditions that any estimate will be a guess, but with my mining experience in this section I believe that I can come sufficiently close for estimating the cost of water transportation, to determine the value of this project. When first I was sent to the Williamson field, the principal coal mines were at Borderland, Chattaroy, Red Jacket, and Thacker. I was employed by the Wilkins Co., who planned and supervised early construction at Gary, Holden, and other large mining plants, and I helped them build the first rail to river tipple at Huntington. In 1908 I had charge of a railroad survey from Matewan to Gilbert. The purpose was to get a connection with the N. & W., and a proposed extension of the Virginian, for a large tract of coal. Then the company opened a branch office at Williamson for general engineering. We secured the work for the Burnwell Coal Co. opposite Sprigg, and the White Star mine 1 mile below Sprigg, both of which worked the No. 2 Gas or Pond Creek seam. This and other work made me familiar with the Kenova-Thacker field at that time. Later I was chief engineer for Red Jacket 2 years, opening mines at Red Jacket and Delorme. Some years later I was engineer for mines at the mouth of Pond Creek. Put in a new plant there, and aerial tramway to coaling station in the Williamson yards. Then I opened new mines on Buffalo and Turkey Creeks. Lived in the Tug River field for 12 years, and have returned from time to time for mining work. My interest in water transportation is due in part to my great-uncle, Capt. John A. Wood, a famous riverman and coal operator. In figuring rates for water transportation it is customary to make them between fixed points, rather than one rate for all points in a coal field to a common destination. The two railroads in the Big Sandy territory have been able to do the latter. They handle a larger tonnage than would be possible for the Big Sandy project, can figure the probable coal tonnage at all points, can run night and day in all kinds of weather, do not have to wait for locks or to pass on curves, are little affected by ice, fog, floods, wrecks, etc. The Tug and Levisa channels would be so narrow and changeable that frequent wrecks would probably occur with four barge tows in passing, and a wreck might block one of these narrow rivers for days. Lost time on the river would be the highest when the demand for coal was greatest. Few mines would care to limit themselves to river shipments. In combination tipples the coal may go all rail at any time, and is usually part rail, so river tonnage is indefinite. The origin of tonnage and other uncertain conditions make it impractical to fix an average rate for coal from all loading points to the Ohio River. In the project report four loading points have been set up for the Tug Fork, and the same for the Levisa, to handle a total of 15,C00,000 tons annually. No tonnage has been set up for any of these points, but in establishing the 33 cents per ton estimate for moving coal to the Ohio River it is evident that they figured approximately the same loading for each point on the Tug Fork, and each on the Levisa. This is not possible, and could not be justified by tonnage from present mines or estimated reserves. To justify the project it takes 15,000,000 tons annually for 50 years, a total of 750,000,000 tons. On the Tug Fork much of the best coal along the river has been worked out, and a large part of what is left may not be worked for many years, on account of quality and higher mining costs. On the Levisa Fork the most profitable coals to mine have been on branch lines, and more than 10 miles from the proposed water transportation. The remaining coals along these rivers will be worked eventually, when they do not have so much competition from other coals more profitable to mine; however, to complete the canal project and transport 750,000,000 tons of coal, by water would take that much from the railroads, and by depriving them of their shorter-haul coal make it more expensive for them to reach other coal not accessible to the river. It is believed that the eight loading points were set up for convenience in figuring river costs, and that there would be other points in between where two or three barges might be loaded in a week. The project shows an estimate of $25,000 for a loading point to handle about 15,000 tons a month, but this does not include excavation and dredging to keep in the clear of the main channel. For small tonnage tows would have to leave an empty on the way up to a point where they would get four barges on the down trip. Handling small tows part way would take extra time and increase costs. With the exception of Offutt I have seen all of the proposed loading points. Even with very favorable river rates I would not expect any of the loading points to develop the tonnage used in this estimate. The tonnage set-up for these narrow streams is excessive, and congestion would cause delays and increase the cost of transportation, but we have to figure on a basis of 15,000,000 tons a year. For figuring the cost of water transportation I have set up the following loading points, and an estimate of tonnage from each. Sprigg (Coal from within 10-mile limit, partly by truck, new road, load on Kentucky side-see notes below). Sprigg (M-91.06, Pocahontas coal from railroad cars-see notes below-West Virginia). 750,000 2, 000, 000 1, 000, 000 Annually as set up in project for the Tug Fork. 6, 000, 000 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES Kermit.-Noted tonnage mined here, but did not consider river loading point necessary. Not called for in the report. Naugatuck.-Project does not anticipate much coal from the Pigeon Creek Branch of the N. & W. It is within their 10-mile limit, but they note a big mountain would interfere with truck haul. Their tonnage reserve does not justify 1,000,000 tons a year, but I have the record of two drill holes here and think it could be increased, however in most places their reserves seem excessive. In the future some coal might be opened near here which could be Estimate a loaded direct to barges. Tonnage would have to be developed. large part to come by rail, truck, or extra mine haul. This should be added to the cost of water transportation. Nolan. More desirable than Borderland. Big Creek and a branch of the N. & W. here. Deep water in proposed pool would permit loading point near mouth of creek. This was proposed where possible in the project report. Tonnage would have to be developed, and probably very little could be loaded without an extra transportation charge. Borderland.-Not considered practicable for a loading point. Narrow chan nel, slipping sides, etc. One company has several miles river frontage. They do not wish water transportation, and no one else could load here. No loading points available from here to dam No. 10. Pond Creek seam.-Small area of thin coal might be worked on Buffalo Creek near Chattaroy, but most of the coal on this creek is being mined by the N. & W. for railroad fuel. Drill holes in Williamson Hollow did not indicate anything workable. Mine in upper end of town had bad conditions and was abandoned. An area of this coal is reported workable near Valley Beach, and could possibly be loaded on barges, West Virginia side. A good-sized mine at Merrimac was worked out, but had some faulty coal along the side next to Sprigg. The engineer for Crystal Block says they cannot work it on their property at Sprigg or above. In the old Burnwell mine, opposite Sprigg, the coal was over 5 feet in some of the workings along the river front, but got lower further back, and the mine was abandoned about 1921. The seam shows up very well at Belfry Coal Co. on the river front. From there on down the river on the Kentucky side as far as Pond Creek the coal has been worked out along the river frontage, except for a small area now being mined, and a reservation at the mouth of a creek below Belfry. From Pond Creek to Turkey Creek this coal within the 3-mile limit is being mined by the N. & W. for railroad fuel. Belfry. There is a mine here with a conveyor line across the river to a railroad tipple. Their general foreman says they expect to use water transportation, and physical conditions are better than at most places along the river. Just below this mine the Fordson Coal Co. has a narrow river frontage. It is here that tunnel is expected to come from mines on Pond Creek. It is mentioned in the project report. They say the cost of hauling coal from Pond Creek to the river would not exceed 15 cents a ton. It is only 2 miles from Hardy, and they might haul coal from or through the mine there to the river. To get coal from other mines on Pond Creek would probably require one or more high trestles, tunnels in old workings, tramroads, etc., and it is not likely these would be built. There is considerable captive tonnage which would not benefit by water transportation. To get a loading point further down the river near Valley Beach they would have to tunnel through extensive old workings, pay haulage royalty, etc., and still have expensive construction to get coal from other Pond Creek mines. If this were done the haulage and loading costs should be added to the cost of water transportation. Sprigg. The project report anticipates a considerable tonnage of low-volatile coal to come via rail. In their summary of river costs this is all they show for this point. If they were to get approximately the same tonnage for each loading point, as their estimate is set up, there would be 1,500,000 tons of this coal. I have increased it one-third because I do not see where this tonnage could be available at other points. Red Jacket and other companies above Sprigg are within the 10-mile limit. To use water transportation they would have extra costs oyer present loading points on the railroad. This would have to be added to the river rates to make a fair comparison. In the project generally they seem to expect to get all coal within the 10-mile limit without taking into account extra haulage costs, etc. Red Jacket mines, except one which is to be abandoned, are 10 miles from Sprigg by the present roads. A new mine is to be opened a mile and a half farther away. The road is black top but is narrow and very crooked, and congestion would cause numerous stops. A new road has been mentioned for the Kentucky side. This would shorten truck haul from Red Jacket about 4 miles, and serve other mines on the Kentucky side, where the coal would be loaded on barges. Estimate of possible tonnage here is improbable, but this would apply to other loading points as well. It is not likely that a much more reasonable distribution of the 6,000,000 tons could be made for the Tug Fork. This estimate for the Levisa Fork is based on tonnage mined last year within 10 miles of the proposed project. This was less than 4,500,000 tons, but was increased proportionately to 9,000,000 tons. This would mean that more than twice the tonnage would have to be mined annually, and that the tonnage now mined would have to go by river instead of by rail, or that the full 9,000,000 tons would have to be developed along the river, unless some coal should come to the river by rail. With the exception of coal hauled by truck, less than 500,000 tons of coal was loaded on railroad cars within 1 mile of the river last year. In many places abandoned mines along the river will make it difficult to get to other coal within the 10-mile limit. There is no coal now loaded at Offutt, but two mines have been abandoned there. One was a shaft, and the coal was high sulfur with high mining costs. Conditions do not favor further development for some time. Tentative river loading point was moved up the river several miles, but some of the mines above are nearly worked out, and mining conditions are not favorable for the increased tonnage as shown. In the Harold section the coal is faulty, and there is nothing to encourage a considerable river tonnage. The most profitable coals to mine on the Levisa Fork are back from the river beyond the 10-mile limit, or 10 miles above the head of navigation. These sections are being developed rapidly, while there are no new mines close to the river except small truck mines, with outside hauls as much as 9 miles. This report was made for Capt. Phil C. Elsey, in connection with his estimate on the cost of water transportation from the Big Sandy project to the Ohio River. [SEAL] J. H. DICKERSON, Mining Engineer. Witness my seal as a registered professional engineer. West Virgina No. 15, Ohio 4440. HILLMAN TRANSPORTATION CO., Capt. PHIL ELSEY, Manager, River Transportation, American Rolling Mill Co., MY DEAR PHIL: Enclosed you will find my opinion of the attempted canalization of the Big Sandy River in order to transport coal. Very truly yours, JOHN L. HOWDER, Vice President. The Big Sandy River is a narrow stream and drains through a lot of sandy country. During freshets it becomes very swift, and in order to canalize this river for the transportation of coal it would be necessary to build locks and dams to create a 9- to 10-foot stage in extreme low water. For economical transportation a boat would have to tow six barges at a time, and with the short bends that are characteristic of this stream, it would be extremely difficult to navigate with a tow of this size in pool water. I am also of the belief that coal could not be transported safely in this stream in times of freshet with wicket dams, and if stationary dams were built it would also be too hazardous at such times for a boat to enter these locks with any size tow. I have observed that in the lower reaches of the Big Sandy the banks are continually caving in and crumbling, carrying falling trees and snags into the stream, and a lot of money would have to be spent on piling and retaining walls to remedy this condition and preserve the banks. It would be my judgment that this proposition is not economically feasible. |