The two main points of interest in Durham coalfield report* would seem to concern the reserves of coking coal and the general question of productive efficiency. Durham has long been renowned as producing possibly the best blast furnace coke in the world, and the Regional Survey Committee concludes that "if the present rate of production and consumption of this grade of coal is maintained, a measure of exhaustion will be experienced within a comparatively short period and the total reserves of this quality of coal will, it is estimated, be extracted within a period of seventy years" (page 15). Later (page 35) it is stated that "The reserves of coking coal, particularly of high-grade quality, are in danger of becoming depleted within the next 50 years."

The coals of Durham are not all of the highest coking quality. The high quality coals are confined to an area in West Durham which is reported to contain reserves of 226 million tons of the very best coking coals from the Busty, Brockwell and Victoria seams, and 102 million tons of less good coking coal from (mainly) the Tilley and Three Quarter seams, making 328 million tons in all. There is also in this area 264 million tons, much of it in the more recent seams, less satisfactory for coking. The Committee quite rightly urges the need for properly blending coking coals of different qualities as opposed to more or less haphazard mixing. Gas coals are produced from almost the whole of the Durham coalfield; these are mainly soft, bright coal of relatively high volatile content (seldom below 35 per cent. on the dry, ash-free basis). Just how much gas coal is produced in Durham is not stated, but a reasonable guess is 6 million tons annually. Taking the average over several years, this is the sort of picture that emerges as the use to which Durham coal is put :–

Thus one-quarter of the whole output is coked in ovens, and if the gas industry is included, about one-half is carbonised. It is disturbing, however, to realise that we have been exporting about half as much of the very best coking coals as we have used ourselves; and that we have exported from this coalfield — one of our greatest mineral assets — no less than 40 per cent. of the whole production. This policy of exporting raw coal from our dwindling reserves has evoked many protests within recent years, and is one that must be carefully re-considered. The Committee's official finding is that "the depletion of coking coal in the past has been accentuated by the considerable export trade in this class of coal."

A very strong case can thus be made out for prohibiting the export of Durham coking coal in the future and for reserving the output of these collieries exclusively for coking. Almost all the Durham coals from both, the East and West parts of the coalfield can be carbonised to yield a satisfactory blast-furnace coke, provided that the ash and sulphur contents are suitable. What causes concern, therefore, is not the exhaustion of the field as a whole, but the exhaustion at a relatively early date of these high-quality coking coals prevalent in the West, coals of restricted distribution which are in a very real sense irreplaceable. Ultra-thin seams hereabouts may also be of fine quality, since coking powers, "so mysterious in their origin," seem to be a regional affair; but even including the Ganister Measures, there cannot be many of them in so shallow a part of the field.

The possibility of these coking coal reserves losing their unique value due to the sudden development of processes improving the type of coke produced from lower grade coking coals must not be overlooked. The Committee has pointed to a historical parallel to this possibility in the virtual disappearance of the market for the high-grade Lancashire cannel coal on the advent of the gas mantle. Notwithstanding, the Committee think that steps should be taken to secure that these high-grade coking coals are used to the best advantage in the national interests, and here they are perfectly right.

In regard to the more general matter of increasing the output per manshift and so improving the economic position of the industry, the Committee review the possibilities of mechanisation but very pertinently point out that the machine cannot yield the optimum production of which it is capable without full co-operation between management and men. Furthermore, co-operation is necessary among the miners themselves and a proper team spirit is essential if the best results are to be obtained. This cooperation and team work, the Committee add, is too often conspicuous by its total absence.

One cause of this condition of affairs is considered to lie in the tradition of local mining customs which developed years ago to meet needs which have long ceased to operate. These restrictive traditions are particularly detrimental to productive efficiency inasmuch as they complicate wages systems with innumerable compensatory payments at a time when a simpler procedure is particularly necessary to accommodate a higher incidence of mechanisation. Consequently the Committee recommend that more flexibility be introduced into the wages structure and in obsolete customs which have operated so seriously against maximum benefits being obtained from modern machinery. These changes, the Committee add, must be accompanied by two complementary developments, viz., (a) improved access to underground producing districts and (b) mechanical cleaning of the mined product. These developments are not considered to permit leisurely progress in view of the nation's economic situation, and accordingly Government financial assistance is envisaged.

The report contains also the findings of the Coal Processing Industries Panel of the N.E. Chemical and Allied Industries Development Committee under the chairmanship of Prof. Riley. The possible future developments by this panel are as follows :–

Professor Riley's panel also envisages the distribution of gas throughout the district by means of a gas grid.

It was also indicated that two further facts must be made clear. "First, keeping in mind the main object of our deliberations-maintenance and provision of postwar employment in this area — no recommendations from this panel on the subject of new coal processing industries will be effective without the expenditure of very large sums of money, and secondly, when dealing with fundamental policy changes in those industries-which are as basic as the coal industry itself — the development schemes which we have proposed will not be successful unless adequately co-ordinated. The gas-grid scheme, the extraction of olefines, methane and other gases, the production from these of chemicals and plastics, the conversion of coke to petrol, diesel oil and other hydrocarbons are all inter-related, and part of one comprehensive coal processing project."

* Durham Coalfield: Regional Survey Report (Northern "B" Region) H.M. Stationery Office, York House, Kingsway, London, W.C.2 1945. Price is. net.