Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

side, and it is those 26 mines that he said would form the backbone of this canal movement that I now want to analyze very briefly. It is impossible within the limits of my time to analyze before you the data relative to each of these companies, and I can give you only the final summary for the group. As for these 26 companies:

Four companies have abandoned operations because of exhausted resources or for other reasons;

One company will exhaust its minable reserves before the canal can be built;

Two properties are owned and operated by the Norfolk & Western Railway for the exclusive production of railway fuel and will never ship any coal by canal.

Mr. DONDERO. I dislike to interrupt you, but I think you are in error in saying that 25,000,000 tons would use this waterway if built, because the engineer, as I understood his statement, claimed it would be 8,300,000 tons. Now, which of those two figures is correct?

Mr. DUNGLINSON. I think I can very quickly clarify that. The 25,000,000 tons response that I made was in answer to a question by your distinguished member, Representative Rankin, when he asked me the total production of all mines in the area involved, all mines on both forks of Big Sandy, the entire production, and my response was approximately 25,000,000 tons-15,000,000 tons was the original estimate of the district engineer as to the commerce of coal on the proposed canal. Now, the Board reduced the 15,000,000 tons of commerce that the engineer said would be developed-the Board reduces that 15,000,000-ton estimate now down to 8,300,000 tons. So the project now is on the basis of 8,300,000 tons of coal commerce moving down the canal, divided approximately one-half on each of the two forks. Is that clear, sir?

Mr. DONDERO. That is clear; yes.

Mr. DUNGLINSON. Twelve companies operate properties too far distant from the canal to be classed as potential shippers of traffic justifying the project.

Three companies are potential shippers by water with partial degree of saving justifying the project; and only three companies and a portion of the property of another company are potential shippers by water with the possibility of full transportation savings creditable to the proposed canal.

The four mines whose properties border on the canal and could load directly to barge on the canal, unless the curvature of the river or other topographical feature makes it impossible without obstructing navigation, shipped a total of 892,465 tons in 1940 and had a total coal reserve of about 60,000,000 tons. The three mines which are potential shippers by water with partial degree of savings produced a total of 333,570 tons in 1940 and had reserves of about 10,000,000 tons.

Thus, instead of 7,846,000 tons of annual production and 474,000,000 tons of reserves claimed by the district engineer as potential traffic on the canal with creditable transportation saving favoring its construction, available at his listed 26 mines, there is in reality only 1,226,035 tons and only 70,000,000 tons of remaining reserves at such mines. And bear in mind these mines are the backbone and main reliance for coal traffic upon which the district engineer depends for his justification for the canal on Tug Fork. It is upon these mines, with

[ocr errors]

an annual production of 14 million tons, that dependence is placed to produce over 4 million tons of canal traffic. Gentlemen, that is optimism to the nth degree.

Mr. DONDERO. Let me make this inquiry here: Isn't it a fact that the engineers claim that in that area are mines not yet opened or developed which would be tributary to this project?

Mr. DUNGLINSON. That claim is made, sir, and I will cover that point, I think, quite to your satisfaction in a few minutes.

Let me analyze very briefly the companies whose properties border on the waterway, right on the canal. It certainly stands to reason that the benefits of water transportation would first inure to the benefit of and would be taken advantage of by the producers having mines right on the canal.

Now, I want to start at the downstream end of the coal measures. The coal measures are up in this area [indicating on map], but they go out of existence and there are no coal measures along the canal beyond just west of Kermit, or about there [indicating]. This property out there is barren of productive coal measures. The productive coal measures lie to the south of that general line [indicating]. Now, I want to start down here at Kermit, where the first mine is that borders on the canal, that is, the property comes down to the canal, borders on the canal. It is, by the way, on the west side, the Kentucky side of the river, across the river from the Norfolk & Western Railway. The first mine there is the Earlston Coal Co.: This mine will exhaust its minable coal reserves before the canal can be built. The next property is the Winco Block Coal Co., which shipped 45,727 tons in 1940 and 102,409 tons in 1945. Its estimated coal reserves are 6,000,000 tons. The coal is not of metallurgical or coking quality. The company is opposed to the canalization project.

The next property, coming upstream, is the Borderland Coal Co., which shipped 131,096 tons in 1940 and 251,039 tons in 1945. This company is opposed to the canalization project and has filed a letter with the Board of Engineers expressing its opposition.

The next coal property is the Pond Creek Colliery of the Norfolk & Western Railway which produced 432,810 tons in 1940 and 554,477 tons in 1945. This mine produces coal exclusively for railway fuel and will, of course, never ship any coal over the waterway.

The next is the Leckie Collieries Co., which shipped 206,559 tons in 1940 and 284,897 tons in 1945. This company is opposed to the navigation project and has filed a letter with the Board of Engineers stating its opposition.

Next is the property of the Eastern Coal Corp., for which Mr. Tierney spoke yesterday. This is the only coal company operating a mine within 50 miles of the canal appearing before the committee in supoprt of the project. The leasehold of this company, embracing approximately 28,000 acres, lies mostly away from the canal, from which 1,751,465 tons were produced in 1940 and 1,340,840 tons in 1945; but it has a frontage on Tug Fork for a distance of approximately 12 miles, along which frontage no mine is presently located, but one could be established there and become a potential shipper on the canal, say to the extent of 500,000 tons annually as Mr. Tierney told you yesterday. The reserve tonnage would be around 25,000,000 tons. The main production of this company must necessarily be at

its remaining mines which lay from 9 miles to 12 miles away from the river. This company is actively supporting the canalization project.

A new mine, or rather a reopened one, has been established on the waterway since the report of the district engineer; this, the last mine bordering on the waterway, is the Belfry Coal Co. which shipped 84,435 tons last year.

The foregoing lists and describes all present operating coal properties bordering on Tug Fork. The five mines which can be potential shippers by water-although only one company is advocating the canal-produced a grand total of only 877,430 tons in the war year of 1945. Their remaining coal reserves are approximately 65,000,000 tons. There is no hope here of any sizable part of the 4,000,000 tons. Now, I want to comment on the statement made repeatedly yesterday that the territory across the waters of Big Sandy from the railroads, the opposite banks of the waterway from the railroad, was little developed because of the absence of transportation facilities and the expense of getting the coal to the railroad; and further, that the canal would provide the transportation needs not now available for these areas.

Mr. DONDERO. No witness has told this committee yet how wide those streams are.

Mr. DUNGLINSON. I cannot tell you the width in feet, but I can assure you that they are quite narrow. I should say that from bank to bank, nominally, along there they would not exceed 200 or 250 feet. Mr. DONDERO. Could they be bridged?

Mr. DUNGLINSON. Oh, yes, they are bridged in a number of places. The statements that the canal would provide the transportation needs not now available for these areas are absolutely not correct, as can be proved by the facts. Between the proposed head of navigation on Tug Fork at Sprigg to the downstream end of the coal measures near Kermit there are on Tug Fork and its tributaries 20 coal companies, operating 24 mines. These mines produced 5,537,202 tons of coal in 1945.

On the east, or West Virginia side, of Tug Fork where lies the main line of the Norfolk & Western there are 9 companies with 10 mines which produced 1,728,461 tons or 31 percent of the total. On the opposite Kentucky side, across from the railroad, there are 11 companies operating 14 mines which produced 3,808,741 tons, or 69 percent of the total. In other words, 69 percent of the production between the head of navigation and the end of the coal measures, the mines along the canal, 69 percent of the tonnage comes from the opposite side of the river from the railroad.

Mr. DONDERO. How does that coal get to the railroad?

Mr. DUNGLINSON. We have several bridges across the river. Mr. DONDERO. That was the reason for my inquiry a while ago. Mr. DUNGLINSON. There are a number of bridges across the river, lateral lines to the railroad, spur lines, and in some instances conveyors bring the coal across the river to the railroad. There is the combination of bridge, spur line, or conveyor, and every mine on the canal which can load direct to barge without intervening haul is located on the Kentucky side opposite from the railroad. Development across the waterway from the railroad has not been stifled through lack of rail facilities.

The impression created by Colonel Feringa yesterday was that the railroads serve only one side of the waterway. The truth is that by railroad branch lines built at railroad expense, and in some cases by conveyors, coal on both sides of the waterway has adequate rail transportation.

Colonel Feringa also inferred yesterday that the bulk of the production in the Big Sandy area moved to markets in the East, you will recall, to New England, to Virginia, to North and South Carolina, and that very little moved to the markets in the West because of inability to meet transportation competition in those markets. The fact is that in the last normal prewar year of 1941, 81 percent of the production in the Thacker-Kenova field moved west-bound and was consumed in western markets, and only 10 percent moved to eastern markets. This typifies the normal movement.

Now, let us consider what can be expected reasonably in the way of new coal mines in the territory along Tug Fork waterway.

The main line of the Norfolk & Western Railway between Norfolk, Va., and Columbus, Ohio, has traversed the valley of the waterway between Sprigg and Naugatuck since 1892. The valley between Naugatuck and Kenova has had main-line rail service by the Norfolk & Western since 1904. Continuously since these dates the coal resources of the territory on both sides of Tug Fork have had available for their development an efficient and cooperative transportation service to all important coal markets. It is natural and logical that the coal bearing lands in the Tug Fork Valley and immediately adjacent thereto worthy of development have by this time been opened up to production, and are now either in active operation or have been depleted to exhaustion. Study and search during a period of more than 40 years has failed to disclose the prospect of economic development of the valley area other than that now reached. There are no grounds for the assumption that the proposed canal will change this time-proven condition. I know of no area along the waterway or within economic distance thereof outside the limits controlled by presently producing companies that will come into production as a result of the construction of the proposed canal. Active production along the waterway on Tug Fork is waning and will continue to wane due to depletion unsupported by new development. The coal production on the Norfolk & Western Railway in West Virginia, Virginia, and Kentucky is and can be maintained only by development in territory not tributary to the proposed canal. The statement was made here yesterday several times that "the vast undeveloped resources" of the Big Sandy Valley could not be developed without this canal-that new development was stymied by lack of competitive transportation facilities and rates. Let's apply the facts to that statement.

The largest mine in the Thacker-Kenova or Big Sandy field is a new mine established only a few years ago and now producing more than 1,500,000 tons a year. Another new mine shipped its first car last October and will ship 1,000,000 tons of coal a year very soon. Three new mines are now under construction and will commence shipping in a few months, with a designed combined capacity of 2,000,000 tons annually. Construction of another mine, with a designed capacity of 1,000,000 tons annually is to start as soon as material and equipment is available.

Here are six mines, new or under construction or projected, with a combined annual capacity of 5,500,000 tons satisfied with present transportation facilities and confident of successful operation without any help from this canal project. The president of one of these companies whose new mine is about to come into production and who is planning the new mine to be started as soon as equipment is available has, by letter addressed to a large number of Congressmen, expressed his opinion on this canal project in the following words:

The territory is well served by rail lines. I have large coal properties on both forks of this river-the Big Sandy-and a large personal investment in them. The theory of this expenditure is that it will help the coal industry. My interest is primarily in coal. I think it would be a very serious waste of money to build this canal and a very heavy annual expense to the Government, and I don't think it would be of any commercial benefit to the United States. It is plain boondoggling. I hope you will keep it in mind when this report comes before Congress and refuse to accept it.

The president of that company is establishing two mines now with a combined capacity of 2,000,000 tons of coal a year. He is satisfied with the present conditions and hopeful of successful operation. The engineer's report suggests the possible use of the canal on Tug Fork for the transportation of smokeless, or low volatile, coal originating in the Pocahontas-Tug River district of the Norfolk & Western Railway. This producing area lies on the headwaters of Bluestone River, a tributary of New River, one of the branches of the Kanawha River. The Pocahontas field, of which Mr. Gardiner spoke yesterday, is mostly not shown on this map.

Mr. DONDERO. Is there any other smokeless coal besides Pocahontas? Mr. DUNGLINSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. DONDERO. What is it called?

Mr. DUNGLINSON. The New River field produces smokeless coal. The Winding Gulch field produces smokeless coal.

Mr. DONDERO. What is it called, if it has a name?

Mr. DUNGLINSON. Pocahontas it the usual name. Low volatile is another usual name. Smokeless coal is a usual name, and there are different trade names, but smokeless or low volatile or Pocahontas usually designates that general area of coal.

Mr. DONDERO. There is no other smokeless coal used in Michigan except what we call Pocahontas.

Mr. DUNGLINSON. There may be now-when you get away from this general area there may be small areas of smokeless coal. Arkansas has a small area of smokeless coal, so-called. The Pocahontas area is up here in this general area [indicating on map]. The other smokeless areas that I referred to are the New River and the Winding Gulch smokeless area of the Chesapeake & Ohio, and the Virginia Railway along New River in this general area here [indicating].

For west-bound movement, this territory is now served by the main line of the Norfolk & Western located along Tug Fork between Kenova and the headwaters of the stream. The nearest mine is 120 miles by rail from Kenova, the farthest one is 184 miles, and the average rail distance from all mines is 150 miles to Kenova. If the canal is constructed on Tug Fork, a waterway 91 miles long will be available between Kenova and Sprigg adjacent to the railroad in the same valley for a rail distance of 80 miles between Kenova and Sprigg. If the canal is constructed, navigable water now available at Kenova

« PreviousContinue »